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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


How can anyone trust this woman & her narcissistic judgements?

To The Daily Sun,

How in the world can anyone have any confidence whatsoever in Obama's attempt to get an agreement with Iran over nuke development? The crazy mullahs say the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable, all sanctions must be lifted before an agreement will be signed, there nuke programs will only be slowed not ended, they will not stop supporting terrorism or attacking neighbors. So what exactly will they agree to? Only to make Obama look like a fool for even trying to deal with radical nut jobs instead of putting real biting sanctions against them, it looks like.

It was the sanctions in the first place that made them beg for negotiations, but then Obama gave away all his bargaining power even before talks began. That seems to be how Obama works because he did the same in his first year dealing with the Russians, killing the antimissile defenses in Eastern Europe, depending on Putin being so grateful that he would be reasonable after that. Look how that has worked out.

Obama's problem is he is incapable of learning from his past failures. Wasn't it Forest Gump's momma who said, "stupid is as stupid does?"

Let's talk about her highness, Hillary "What does it really matter" Clinton for a moment. Here is a woman who champions women's rights, but takes tens of millions of dollars from people who violate, subjugate, abuse, brutalize and kill women as a cultural norm. Her highness, as Secretary of State, violated law, policy and good sense by doing all her government work on personal servers kept at her home then when caught and questions were being asked had them wiped clean. Four years of communications destroyed in violation of right-to-know laws. Geeze, Nixon only erased 18 minutes of tapes and look what happened to him. Besides no one died at the Watergate unlike Benghazi.

So now we see she's running again for president. How can anyone even pretend to trust this old woman and her narcissistic judgments? Do Democrats really want someone representing them who believes she is above the law, above the Constitution and thinks she is just plain entitled to it?

After nearly seven years of progressive failures, blunders, scandals and harming the very people they pretend to represent real Democrats should examine themselves and ask: Do I really want another four years of the same shameful convolution of principles that have been committed in our names?

Steve Earle


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 259

Dr. Dawson doesn't appreciate who's paying our country's bills

To The Daily Sun,

This is in response to Dr. Thomas Dawson's letter which appeared recently in The Laconia Daily Sun.

Why some folks on the left insist on demonizing those who have achieved some measure of success is puzzling. Aren't we taught that this is the land of opportunity? Haven't we learned that entrepreneurs often risk all they have to bring a new product or service to market? Some succeed and many fail, often repeatedly, before finally achieving their aims. So why do we demonize those who were willing to risk all, and were rewarded for filling a market need? It seems that some on the left want to punish them because they have achieved a greater "share" than those who have not taken the risk.

Another contribution of that dreaded 1 percent (dreaded by some on the left, that is), is that their success has not only satisfied a market need, it has created countless numbers of jobs that became necessary in order to fill those market needs. Of course, along with those jobs, came new tax revenues from both the employees and the employers. Those taxes went to fund the government at the local, state, and federal levels. The government on the other hand, has never created a job that paid for itself . . . every government job required tax dollars from employees and employers to fund it. And, not to be overlooked is the fact that every one of those private sector jobs provided the income to the employer and employees to buy everything they needed for themselves and their families, from groceries, to homes, to automobiles, etc., and those purchases actually created jobs for others.

In his effort to demonize the 1 percent, Dr. Dawson cited an article by Professor Robert Kuttner. From what Dr. Dawson wrote, it appears that the article's first objective was to blame Republicans for the dysfunction of our government. Among Kuttner's (and Dawson's) criticisms is the claim the ". . . Republican Party promotes the transfer of wealth and power to the rich or 1 percent." I would ask the two learned gentlemen, how did that transfer occur? There are many sources people can check on this but the bottom line is the top earners contribute an overwhelming amount of tax dollars to our government, while the bottom half of earners pay virtually no income tax, but receive various benefits such as earned income tax credits. Those interested might want to check out this report aired by CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/.

Dawson/Kuttner then goes on to claim that the Supreme Court is a "subsidiary of the Republican Party." They claim that the court's Citizens United decision allowed the rich to ". . . buy candidates and sway elections . . ." If anyone would like to take the time, they can look up any number of sources on the 2012 presidential campaign fundraising. What they will find is that the Obama campaign did not suffer one whit from the Citizen's United decision. Here is a quote from a "Truthout.org" article: "The Obama campaign raised more than $632 million during the 2012 election season, about 62 percent more than the Romney campaign's $389 million. When factoring fundraising by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, the Obama re-election team still topped Romney's by $166 million."

Further on in Dr. Dawson's letter, beginning at paragraph five, he and Kuttner bemoan changes in job structures. If anything qualifies as "old news", it is this. Back in 1970, futurist Alvin Toffler wrote his book "Future Shock". In it, Toffler predicted the changing job structures that would evolve out of technology advancements. Among the things he wrote about was that career jobs, where workers would spend 30 or 40 years with a company and then retire on a company pension, those jobs would fade away and be replaced with shorter term jobs. Workers might have five or six different careers in the evolving world. Pensions, what we now refer to as "legacy costs", would be replaced with individual retirement plans. He essentially predicted the need for a 401(k) like system so that, in the new job world, people could move from job to job and take their retirement plans with them.

Neither Dr. Dawson nor Professor Kuttner seems to have a background in business. And, neither seems to appreciate who is paying the lion's share of our government's operating costs. Perhaps if government got out of the way, and removed the cloud of uncertainty posed by ever increasing government regulations, jobs would again become plentiful and lift us from the worst labor participation rate since 1978.

Bob Meade

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 271