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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.

 

Warmer (than now) is better for human beings; it saves lives

To The Daily Sun,

The representatives of the party of peace, diversity, tolerance, and love seem to be competing in creating vile names to call people with diverse views and inconvenient facts in order to intimidate them into silence.

Ed Allard's effort of April 29 surpasses previous leader, James Veverka, whose May 1 effort seems stale and eerily similar to Allard's effort.

Aside from name-calling, Veverka's letter wants to waste his, my, and readers' time debating the minutia of the earth's climate which has been changing for billions of years in ways that, based on the failed predictions of the consensus of his "scientists" over the last 20-30 years, is unpredictable.

I put quotes around "scientists" because they ceased being real scientists when they started manipulating data and trying to suppress opposing data and arguments in order to support what the politicians' wanted, and paid for, to justify increasing taxes and energy costs, and restricting our freedoms.

As they were hired to do, the "scientists" "proved" that burning fossil fuels caused global warming and predicted numerous man-made global-warming caused disasters unless we raised taxes, stopped burning fossil fuels, and implemented costly programs. When those predictions didn't occur, the "scientists" then "discovered" and "proved" that burning fossil fuels caused man-made climate-change which had to be addressed with the very same tax increases, reduced fossil fuel use, and costly programs.

Scientists have been studying the climate for many millennia. They have been predicting (non-occurring) disasters, alternating about every 30 years, because of global warming or cooling for more than a century.

The important question is, do we prefer more people to live or do we prefer, as Veverka apparently does, that politicians achieve their political objectives no matter how many humans die? I prefer more people to live.

The earth's climate will change with little or no impact from whatever number of trillions of dollars the politicians are able to tax and spend on their man-made climate-change hoax.

While the money the politicians want to spend (to increase their power, to enrich themselves and special interest groups, and to increase their control of the people) will have little effect on the earth's climate, this useless spending wastes money that could be productively invested to increase human wealth.

Human ability to adapt enables us to survive extreme weather, climate changes and natural disasters. The wealthier humans are the more people will survive.

According to Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, the earth's average temperature over the last 1 billion years has been about 14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today (http://goo.gl/klz9yT). Warmer (than now) is better for humans, warmer saves lives; cold kills many thousands more people annually than die from heat. Humans flourish when the earth is warmer and millions have historically died when the earth cools.

For a fraction of the money the politicians want to spend on climate change to maybe help a few people in 100 years, we could help millions of people now by making sure everyone has clean water, more food, vaccinations, better sanitation and waste disposal, medical care, etc. (Bjorn Lomborg elaborates on this in his book, "Cool It!".)

The most success in improving human lives recently has been the spread of capitalism and free trade which has enabled, and continues enabling hundreds of millions to escape poverty; the number of people living on less than $1 per day has been reduced by almost two-thirds in less than 50 years.

Most Americans are rightfully skeptical of politicians' claims about the need to tax and spend trillions to address man-made global warming-cooling-warming-climate-change. Not only are politicians so untrustworthy, not only have the "scientists'" predictions of disaster failed to happen, but Americans know they can't even depend on the weekend weather forecast.

Most Americans know that when they can, advocates use facts, history, and logic to support their arguments. Lacking facts, history, and logic, advocates like Veverka, Allard and most leftists try to win by slandering opponents, calling them names, shouting them down, stifling debate, falsifying or withholding information, claiming a false "consensus," and/or otherwise trying to intimidate opponents into silence.

Don Ewing

Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 384

Show me evidence of an income tax reducing property taxes

To The Daily Sun,

I read, with interest, my friend Tom Dawson's letter proposing an income tax as the solution to our fiscal woes, including our high property taxes. I just want to list my personal experience dating way back, to around 1960, when I was a resident in Lisbon Falls, Maine. The state imposed a "small and temporary" income tax just to get the state over some temporary fiscal hurdle.

I can't find the actual figure now, but I believe that it was about 2 percent. The taxes on my first home, there, were average for the state and I don't believe that there was a sales tax at that time.

Now comes the current tax situation in Maine, and what would inevitably be in New Hampshire's future, with the introduction of his proposal. Their 2014 income tax rates are: no tax on the first $10,449, 6.5 percent on $10,450-$41,849, and 7.95 percent above $41,850. Maine also has a sales tax of 5.5 percent and a rooms and meals tax of 8 percent. They also have numerous excise taxes. For example: $2 per pack on cigarettes, 30 cents a gallon on gas, $5.79 a gallon on liquor, plus several more.

I don't recall any instant impact on my property taxes and soon left the state to follow my job with IBM. I did make a current comparison between Lisbon Falls and Laconia and found that their 2014 tax rate was $24.20 per $1,000 and ours was $22.40, not even a small reduction with both broad based taxes in force.

So, where does all the money go, as most any news report from Maine has the governor in hot water for trying to make the state live within its means. In my opinion, a good share goes to ever expanding state bureaucracy with bloated administrations and little actual benefit to the deserving public. There is never enough of other people's money to satisfy the politicians in power or the party that still believes that ever larger government is the answer and should be all things to all people. This is a great vote-getter as more and more people find that they don't really have to produce to be supported by that government. This can actually work for an unknown length of time, but at some point the tipping point is reached and it will all collapse.

Obviously, I don't have the answer to the many problems facing our state. I just wanted to point out how history shows that most of any additional money taken from the people will not be applied to the stated purposes. It will just be absorbed by those in power for mostly political purposes.

Donald Lockwood

Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 208