A+ A A-

What I heard at Kimball Castle hearing in Gilford was lots of apathy

To The Daily Sun,

I have just come from the forum for Kimball's Castle. I got to hear a few speakers from Gilford on what they would like done to the castle. The overall census was that it should be fenced, and allowed to deteriorate naturally. One businessman spoke that it was not worth anything, and should be torn down. I am sure his reasoning is that someone from Mass. could buy the land, and build a monstrosity of a house. Of course he would need a boat as so many of Mass intruders come and abuse our natural beauty.

What I did hear tonight (Thursday) was a bunch of apathy. Gilford residents had a chance to come forward, and let their opinion be known, and have an option to vote whether or not they wanted to keep the castle or not. This did not happen as I am afraid you could care less. America is failing because of APATHY! You go to the polls, and hardly anyone is there. The next day the papers tell of the poor turnout. Guess what America, there are lot's of countries watching this, and they will soon invade us as we idly stand by, and allow them to!

Gilford was sadly remiss in not acting sooner on this problem. It was clear that the stipulations of the sale of the castle were not followed through and it should have reverted back to the town long before the castle, and grounds, were allowed to decay to this point!

Gilford is not the only town. Too many towns have allowed many historical landmarks to fall into disrepair or torn down to make way for so called improvement. I am so sick and tired of watching this happen. My husband and I joined the committee to save the castle. Most meetings we had maybe four or five people show. I saw this happening with the local Grange. I was paying all the bills out of my retirement to keep it going while no one was joining, and helping to save it. It took going from door-to-door asking the community to come together to decide what they wanted to do with the grange. We had 32 people join that night, and through the wonderful group of people that have come forward, joined, and got a lot of businesses to help restore the Wicwas Lake Grange; we have the largest Grange in N.H.

What I am getting at is that as citizens of the U.S., we need to start being proactive. This means that we need to start in our communities. We need of make our voices heard. I hear so many people complain about the politicians, but do go out, and vote! Wake up America, before it's too late!

Linda Phelps

Last Updated on Friday, 11 April 2014 10:25

Hits: 374

Come to Monday night City Council meeting to share MetroCast thoughts

To The Daily Sun,

I would like to remind all concerned citizens that on Monday night at 7 p.m., our city councilors at the regularly scheduled city council meeting will discuss the new MetroCast contract agreement. This is your opportunity to be heard.

I am personally asking for as many people to attend as possible. I will do my best to be there. However, I am experiencing a sudden severe illness that is leaving me tired and weak because of it. I promise I will do my best to be there and share what I have learned recently.

Scott Kipreotis


Last Updated on Thursday, 10 April 2014 09:18

Hits: 217

U.S. revenues went from $1.88 trillion to $2.57 trillion under Bush 43

To The Daily Sun,

The other day, Henry Osmer somewhat gloatingly stated that the Bush tax cuts cost the country $1.8 trillion in lost revenues. Of course he had put together his letter in order to defend the indefensible . . . that is, Professor Maloof and the current administration . . . and that gross number was used for its shock value.

In researching Mr. Osmer's $1.8 trillion reference, I found that it was based on a set of assumptions, mainly that there would be virtually no difference in tax receipts if taxes were lowered or increased. However, that assumption is in direct contradiction to what has become known as the Laffer Curve, which states that no change in tax revenues occurs only at the extreme ends . . . either at a zero tax rate or at a 100 percent tax rate. Further, as tax rates are raised or lowered, there is a point where the tax rate is optimum to achieve maximum revenues. As the following paragraphs will show, tax revenues increased as the Bush tax cuts took effect, so it is a reasonable assumption that Laffer's theory is more plausible than the one cited by Mr. Osmer. What follows is a little historical perspective on the issue.

Just prior to President Bush taking office in January 2001, the "Dot Com" (Internet growth) bubble burst. It had a devastating impact on the economy as a number of major companies had continued to build the products to accommodate the Internet's high rate of growth, when in a flash, the demand for those products virtually ceased. Also in 2001, the country was shaken by the 9-11 attacks, which also devastated the economy. Total annual tax revenues which were $2.03 trillion in 2000, dropped down to $1.78 trillion by 2003.

The so-called Bush tax cuts that were passed in 2002 gradually began to turn around that downward trend, and in 2004, there was a slight upturn as revenues reached $1.88 trillion. From that point on, for 50 straight months, the economy grew. In 2007, revenues reached a high of $2.57 trillion. In 2008, when the housing bubble burst, incoming revenues dropped to $2.52.

When President Obama took office in 2009, revenues dropped to $2.1 trillion but then grew each of the following years, with 2013 reaching a high of $2.78 trillion. It should be noted that in 2012, Congress and the president let the Bush tax cuts expire but, on the very next day, they passed and signed into law most of those same broad-based tax cuts . . . while inflicting some tax pain on high income earners and on those who were receiving income from dividends and capital gains. They also re-instated the "death tax" but raised the threshold before that tax could be imposed. (Mr. Osmer might ask himself, if the Bush tax cuts were "bad," why did President Obama re-instate the majority of them?)

During his tenure, in addition to his tax reduction policies to stimulate growth, President Bush instituted a number of spending measures in an effort to stimulate the economy. During his eight years in office, his average deficit spending per year amounted to $313.9 billion. President Obama also instituted a number of spending programs. During his first five years in office he has averaged deficit spending of $1.155 trillion per year.

The country does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. We cannot continue to spend over 40 percent more than we take in. We have an out-of-control government that, in the pretense of doing good for the people, is steadily burdening them with so much debt, that it will ultimately make them servants of the government. The road we're on will change our political system from what has been a government of, by, and for the people, to, sadly, a government that diminishes our freedoms and invites tyranny.

Bob Meade


Last Updated on Thursday, 10 April 2014 09:14

Hits: 247

People can be part of racist system without personally being racists

To The Daily Sun,

Personally, I don't think everyone who voted against President Obama is consciously a racist or a bigot or that everyone who voted for him is not. I do not know everyone's heart.

I think (or at least hope) that many, if not most, people are not bigots in the sense that they personally hate African-Americans. But, people can be a part of a racist system or way of thinking even if they personally like some people of color.

Examples can be found in the South under Jim Crow or in South Africa under apartheid, where many whites bragged about how much they "liked" the black people that worked for them while benefiting from those systems. There are those who can say "some of my best friends are black" but still support policies that are detrimental to African Americans or other minorities.

It is similar to those Christians who would never picket a funeral like the Westboro Baptists, but say they "love" gay people while at the same time, work to deny them basic civil and human rights. That is a lot like saying you "love" people of color while still supporting segregation.

Those who simply criticize President Obama for this or that policy are probably not being bigoted. I criticize the president all the time but I do so on real issues. I criticize Obamacare because it is a sell-out to the insurance companies. President Obama was not my first choice in the primaries. I have voted in most elections since I was 18, and rarely have I voted "for" anyone. Usually, I find myself voting against the other candidate. Clearly, most American elections are like Utah executions in that you are given a choice of two ways to be disposed of, but that is another subject.

Where bigotry and/or racism may come into play is in the outrageous misinformation and misinformation about the president. He is routinely accused by many people on the far right of not being a U.S. citizen, of having committed treason, of giving undocumented aliens the right to vote, of establishing "death panels" for senior citizens, or of being a radical Muslim.

Perhaps those who disseminate such bold, outright lies are not consciously racist. I realize most do not wear sheets or burn crosses. At the very least, however, they are certainly practicing racial discrimination. Treating someone differently because of their ethnicity or race is discrimination. Have you known any white presidents who have had to put up with such outrageous accusations? The right hated Bill Clinton with a passion but they never accused him of not being born in Arkansas!

E. Scott Cracraft


Last Updated on Thursday, 10 April 2014 09:00

Hits: 124

Selectmen can't chose to not enforce Rights Based Ordinances

To The Daily Sun,

Community Rights Based Ordinances (RBOs) were passed on March 11 of this year by Alexandria, Danbury, and Hebron by margins of approximately 3 to 1 in Alexandria and Danbury, and 8 to 1 in Hebron. The town of Grafton passed an RBO in March 2013.

The purpose of a Community Rights Based Ordinance is to declare the rights on a municipal level that are already afforded to us in our state Constitution. This is necessary because some corporations use our constitutional rights against us, and they need to be stripped of their claimed rights as "persons" within the towns, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and ecosystems.

Corporations are still welcome to do business within towns that have an RBO, so long as their actions do not violate the rights declared within the RBO.

It is the duty of the selectmen and/or town clerk to certify ordinances. Since the RBO was legally presented as a petitioned warrant article in each of the towns, and passed by majority vote, it is the duty of selectmen, or the town clerk (according to RSA 31:128), to sign the actual ordinance as a means to certify it. It does not matter what the personal opinion is of the selectmen, or town clerk regarding the ordinance — they are in violation of their duties if they do not sign the ordinance.

The next step in the process is to notify any corporations, or individuals that may be participating with a corporate developer, of the new law if they are in violation of the RBO. This is a procedural action that is intended to be a courtesy, as well as a warning that any action taken that would violate the Rights Based Ordinance is considered illegal. Each party notified receives a copy of the RBO, the town warrant, along with a letter of notification. Once again, it is the responsibility of the selectmen to carry out this action.

If a town has a land use zoning ordinance, the representatives of the town cannot pick and choose which part of the ordinance to enforce, or not enforce - and they certainly cannot choose not to enforce the ordinance at all. The same applies to the Rights Based Ordinance.

Section 4 — Enforcement of the RBO speaks of the town, or resident, taking action against a violation of the RBO. This does not mean the selectmen of a town have the option to pass off enforcement of the RBO to residents, as that would be a violation of their duties to enforce the ordinance. What it means is that whether the town, or resident, files suit against a corporation that violates the RBO, they shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorneys' fees.

To say that the town "may enforce this ordinance through an act of equity" means the selectmen can choose to take a violating corporation to court, or they can settle the matter another way — iit does not allow the selectmen the choice of whether or not they want to enforce the ordinance. It is their duty to enforce the Rights Based Ordinance.

Michelle Sanborn

CARE Group

Last Updated on Thursday, 10 April 2014 08:57

Hits: 263

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