To The Daily Sun,
Elections are over. Disappointing results. The voters of Franklin sent a strong message, but those who won are too darn pompous to get it! The mayoral race was won by incumbent Ken Marrifield — a mere 50 vote advantage. That number would not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Glenn Morrill campaigned against him for less than a week.
The school board three year term should have been won by Gwen Hall. The 38 votes for the school board, two year term, were obviously intended for her. Even so she lost the three year seat by only 11 votes.
We move on. Those of you who cared enough to write in the "write-ins" — we need to stay vigilante! Remember, those elected should not be working for you and what is best for all the citizens of Franklin and not a token few.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 08 October 2013 11:31
To The Daily Sun,
The partial government shutdown is President Obama's political theater, intended to intimidate Republicans into ending their opposition to Obamacare, continued reckless spending, Obama's job killing policies, and Obama's appointment of radical left-wingers to key government positions.
Without media hype, most Americans wouldn't notice the "shutdown". To increase the pain and get attention President Obama spent more money to shutdown things never closed before, such as open air monuments like the WWII and Viet Nam Memorials, where he erected barriers and sent more guards to prevent access than normally there.
Republicans passed a bill to fund every part of government except for two minor Obamacare changes to which Democrats object.
Republicans say big business shouldn't get a one year delay from Obamacare requirements unless individuals get a delay too. And, Republicans don't want highly paid (on average double the private sector) senators, congressmen, and their staffs to get 3/4s of their health care premiums paid by taxpayers over and above any normal Obamacare subsidies.
President Obama stated that these Republican changes wouldn't stop Obamacare, so these aren't the reason for the shutdown.
There is a partial government shutdown because President Obama believes he can win a political victory and bludgeon Republicans into dropping opposition to anything he wants.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 08 October 2013 11:27
To The Daily Sun,
It's that time of year again! The Meredith Emergency Food pantry uses its own funds to fill the shelves in preparation for the holidays. It can be a monthly bill of $2,000 for the food pantry. The pantry cannot survive on the account funds alone; it NEEDS donations! There are many, many families in need of assistance and part of being a community is to reach out and support in any way we can. With that being said, the caring educational people of the Inter-Lakes school system would like to assist!
The Inter-Lakes Education Association (I-LEA) and the Inter-Lakes Support Staff Association (I-LSSA) are now planning the 4th annual Indoor Yard Sale. These associations are the teachers and paraeducators of the Inter-Lakes School District.
The food pantry is in need of help; therefore, 100 percent of the money from the yard sale will be donated to the food pantry.
In addition to many donated items there will also be baked goods and specialty baskets for sale.
Please support this yard sale to help families in need as the holidays approach. Let's all chip in to make this event a successful one! Last year we raised $2000 for the pantry.
The indoor yard sale will be Saturday, October 19. This event will run from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Inter-Lakes Elementary School in the multi-purpose room. The elementary school is located behind the high school (Laker Lane) off Route 25 in Meredith.
Donations for the yard sale may be dropped off Friday, October 18 from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. or the morning of the yard sale on Saturday from 7 to 8 a.m. (no electronics).
The Meredith Emergency Food Pantry is located at 147 Main St. and is open for donations Mon. – Fri. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Alesia Parks (ILEA Member)
Last Updated on Tuesday, 08 October 2013 11:25
To The Daily Sun,
In our spiral to third-world status, we twisted from sequestration (still growing) to shut down in seven months. Will default follow in 17 days?
Other than Denmark, we are the only developed nation on the planet with a debt ceiling. Nothing in our Constitution requires it. No rationale justifies it.
It began as a charade in 1917. As America prepared to enter World War I, it needed financial resources to raise and equip an army. The Wilson Administration proposed selling Liberty Bonds to raise funds; that is, it proposed borrowing money to fight the war.
To comfort skeptical Americans, Congress wrote a debt ceiling into the Second Liberty Bond Act. Its purpose was not to limit spending and borrowing. It was to reassure the public that Congress could control spending even as it approved a credit line.
It was a ruse. There was no need for the law. The Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the power to tax, pay debts and borrow money. Congress perpetuates its absolute "control of the purse strings" through authorization and appropriation processes.
An authorization is a law giving government entities the okay to spend designated amounts for purposes specified in the legislation. No government entity can spend a nickel without Congressional authorization.
An appropriation is an entirely separate law that actually makes money available. Again, a government entity cannot spend a nickel until Congress appropriates the nickel.
It is like a mother telling her child, "You can buy the smartphone. Go ask your father for the money." If the kid gets the money, mom authorized it; dad appropriated it.
In its nearly century-long existence, the ceiling never significantly curbed spending or borrowing. The reason is straightforward. Raising the debt ceiling is not a policy, spending or borrowing decision (although many would have us think it is all three). It is a mathematical imperative.
While debt ceiling as fiscal restraint has proved useless, it has provided a near perfect vehicle for Congressional demagogy and grandstanding. Members of Congress could berate debt with impunity. No matter how loudly they wailed and strutted, there was no downside. Congress had to raise the ceiling. The money had been authorized, appropriated and spent.
A near perfect rant came from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in 2006, when he voted against a raise: "(Raising the debt) is a sign of leadership failure . . . that (government cannot) pay its own bills . . . that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our (recklessness. . . . This) weakens us domestically and internationally. . . . Americans deserve better."
Of course, there was always a small, but real danger demagogues might command a majority. If that happened, though it seemed farfetched, Congress could stand on principle, vote an ideology and crash the economy. (Who could be that stupid?)
When the debt ceiling became law — America was a bit player in planetary economics. Today, as the Great Recession (2007 – 2009) demonstrated, America plays lead. Its turbo capitalism nearly brought down the world's economy.
As it stands, the Department of the Treasury has said it will run out of money Oct. 17. Several independent analysts think Nov. 1 is more realistic.
So, what happens to America if it defaults? The best answer is we do not know, but it looks scary, very scary.
In 2011, just by publicly considering it, confidence fell, hiring declined, the recovery stalled, Standard & Poor's downgraded our credit worthiness and the stock market (Dow Jones) dove 14 percent. (In today's 15,000-point market, 14 percent would be 2,100 points.)
We should anticipate an actual default to be worse than a scare of default on confidence, recovery (perhaps a new recession or worse), our credit rating and the markets. Over time, we might find costs to borrow (nationally and individually) will be elevated for years or decades and our standard of living damaged for a generation or more.
Two parting thoughts:
Is the Constitutional authority given Congress to pay debts also the authority to renege on debts? It would be something if after plunging the planet into depression, destroying our credibility, undermining the dollar, condemning our children to lesser lives and making our homilies to be emulated a joke, the Supreme Court said Congress did not have suicidal authorities?
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads, "The validity of the public debt . . . shall not be questioned." If the president evokes this provision to pay debt after Congress reneges, what new Constitutional and political crises arise? What new spin deepens the spiral?
Last Updated on Tuesday, 08 October 2013 11:22
To The Daily Sun,
The large majority of residents at Briarcrest Estates, a 241 unit manufactured home park currently with two purchase offers on the table, are organizing to form a home owners association and have retained attorney Phil McLaughlin to provide legal services in the matter of who purchases the park. These residents believe only one interested party will be able to maintain the quality, affordability, ease of living and high standards for which people choose Briarcrest Estates as their home.
In July Mark and Ruth Mooney, who have owned the top-tier manufactured home development for 25 years, received a purchase offer from Maple Holding & Redevelopment, LLC on behalf of Hometown America, which owns and operates 41 top-tier parks across the nation. They have the financial power and management expertise to keep Briarcrest Estates a superb community and maintain the quality and standards the Mooney's have provided us with all these years. In fact the Mooney's have agreed to be involved with running the park for two years after the purchase is made.
However, a relatively small number of residents, who would rather be in control of the large park by making it a co-operative or resident owned park, took it upon themselves, with the aid of ROC-NH — a housing and loan operation — to form Lakemont Cooperative, Inc. with the intent to purchase the park. The co-op placed a matching offer in September. Belknap County Superior Court has been petitioned to determine if the offer must be accepted, given the fact the large majority of current park residents don't want the responsibility of owning or maintaining the $10 million dollar park.
A core group of 11 residents, representing the nearly 80 percent of residents who oppose the formation and actions of the co-op, have been meeting to organize and take action on behalf of the residents. We will hold a resident-wide meeting this month and have gained legal representation and a voice in the matter. It is our goal to stop further action by the co-op and preserve the quality and integrity of Briarcrest Estates, which we feel would be achieved in the experienced hands of Hometown America.
Briarcrest Estates Homeowners Association
Last Updated on Monday, 07 October 2013 11:59