A+ A A-

All the scholarship money comes from voluntary contributions

To the editor,
I am writing in response to Sen. Andrew Hosmer's April 18 letter to the editor in The Laconia Daily Sun entitled "Education Tax Credit Program clearly violates N.H. Constitution", wherein he indicates his reasons for supporting the repeal of the education tax credit bill passed by the 2011 legislature.
This legislation was passed to provide opportunity to lower income and underprivileged children and to level the playing field allowing all of New Hampshire's children equal access to the same schools and education that the more fortunate families are taking advantage of every day! This program has been well received by both businesses and the public as one more way to help empower our families and strengthen the middle class in New Hampshire.
The body of this law can be found at RSA 77‐A:5, XV, RSA 77‐E:3‐d, and RSA 77‐G, and here is how it works: New Hampshire businesses may voluntarily divert a portion of their state business tax liability into a scholarship fund. When they do so, they receive only 85 percent of that contribution toward their business tax liability. This gives New Hampshire businesses the ability to invest in the creation of a highly skilled and well‐educated workforce; which is the key to maintaining the New Hampshire advantage in the future.
Sen. Hosmer cites several reasons for wanting to dismantle this system, all of which are misguided, misinformed, and unfortunately could be misleading.
First, he states that he has "grave concerns about the constitutionality of the education tax credit program." Does this mean that it is unconstitutional for the state to pay chaplains who minister to our military personnel in the New Hampshire National Guard? Of course it is not! There are currently commissioned officers serving in the National Guard whose sole purpose is the religious and spiritual well‐being of our troops. The education tax credit program is simply a government partnership program which allows scholarship recipients to spend their scholarship in the most effective manner. Similar programs are, and have been in place for many years at the state and federal levels. As but one example, the U.S. Department of Labor, using Trade Act funds (funded by taxes on American businesses) provides tuition and expenses for qualified individuals to attend the school of their choice — including private and religious schools — to receive qualified education and training. Another example would be the G.I. bill for military veterans (there are more than a few students at St. Anselms and St. Josephs on
government scholarships). Both of these programs have been around for decades and neither have been deemed unconstitutional. Shouldn't we leave the interpretation of the constitutionality of the laws to the courts, and not to the senators?
Next, Sen. Hosmer states that he has concerns about the "overall effect this program will have on public education, and impact it would have on local property taxpayers." In fact, the effect that it will have is only positive! It builds organic accountability into the public school system by introducing more competition into the education marketplace. This country was founded upon the principles of fair play.
As for the impact on local property taxpayers, it would have a zero impact! Here is why. All monies to support this program are provided by New Hampshire businesses who voluntary contribute a portion of their business profits tax. Not one penny comes from local property taxes.
Finally, the opposition to the Network for Educational Opportunity (NEO) administering the scholarship fund is completely unfounded and an unfair mischaracterization. First, NEO is a private, not‐for‐profit organization working in partnership with the state government to efficiently and effectively bring scholarships to children who need it most. It is that simple. NEO is not a "shadowy" organization, especially when compared with the National Education Association (NEA) whose union bosses are more interested in huge profits than the education of our children. By contrast, NEO's director, Kate Baker, is available, accessible, and has committed a high level of transparency to the public.
In closing, I would agree with Sen. Hosmer that our public education system is not perfect. Though we need to constantly improve our public education system, it is only common sense that when something doesn't work, we need to try something different. After all, education is not like a baseball cap, one size does not fit all!
Josh Youssef

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 12:04

Hits: 347

Type 'racist roots of gun control laws' into your search engine

To the editor,
Looks like someone has his facts bass-ackwards. Mr. Maloof, in his letter in the Apil 17th Daily Sun, says that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is racist. This is such a blatantly false statement one must question what qualifies as racism to this individual.
Gun control IS racist, and, in fact, racist arms laws predate the United States of America on this continent! In 1751 in Louisiana, colonists were required, by the French Black Code, to stop and beat any black carrying a POTENTIAL weapon, and if the black with a potential weapon was on horseback, they were to be shot and killed. Mr. Clayton E Cramer has an excellent research paper on the subject of racist arms laws that can be found at the JPFO website http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/cramer-racist-roots.htm. It is well presented and well documented. JPFO also has two historical video research pieces on the racist basis of gun control laws, they are short and to the point, at their site, one is No Guns for Negros, and the other is No Guns for Jews: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_list&c=8
After the Civil War, the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan were, and in the case of the Democratic Party still are, the primary proponents of gun control laws. Take some time to review the short article at http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130413/OPINION05/304130019/Racist-roots-gun-control-efforts. This has some examples of racist gun control activities as late as the 1950s in the USA.
A little research goes a long ways to debunk such flagrantly false statements as "the Second Amendment is racist". Type "racist roots of gun control laws" into your favorite search engine and you come up with more than 10 pages of articles — including research work — that has been done on this topic. I even took my list and filtered it down to pieces that are no more than a month old, and STILL had more than 10 pages of listings. These range from thoroughly researched pieces like Mr. Cfamer's paper, to commentary made on blogs. So, to come out with such a flagrantly false statement as Mr. Maloof did, one needs to ask what, exactly, he considers racism to be?
A. C. R. Piper

Last Updated on Saturday, 20 April 2013 12:00

Hits: 429

Then why won't he send his own children to public schools?

To the editor,
I would like to respectfully ask Sen. Hosmer where he sends his children to school. If not the public school system why? Next I would like to ask, what constituency he is representing? It is in the state's interest to produce upstanding young people and solid citizens? If he is choosing private schooling to accomplish this for his children, I think that that is confirmation that he understands that that is the best option for accomplishing this, for we best take care of things that are our own. In his supporting HB-370 a bill that would repeal the education tax credit program, he cites what he says is a constitutional problem with the education tax credit program. This seems to be but a foil to me, with the intent to confuse the reader as to what is the real issue. As I understand it, money in this program is donated by local corporations to the family of the student so they can send there child to the school of their choice. The corporation then gets a tax credit. Even if the family chooses a "religious" school; its a stretch to call this state-funded religious education.
More aptly put, the public school system is losing some money because they are not getting the job done. But if Sen. Hosmer can get you to think that there is a constitution conflict, he is off the hook for the obvious hypocrisy between his personal choices and his vote against the public good. For unless you can afford to send your children to a private school or perhaps home school, he wants you to have but one option, a school system to which he will not send his own children. If he believes in the public school system then why won't he send his children there?
Neither is more money for the public school system the answer to our states educational woes. Let them compete. The better schools will get the the more students. When the problem is the educational system's philosophy and they can't compete, the answer is simple; eliminate or minimize the competition. Again respectfully, whose interest is Sen. Hosmer serving?
John Demakowski

Last Updated on Friday, 19 April 2013 11:56

Hits: 714

Those same 4 Democrats voted to downshift $241k to county

To the editor,
In the Thursday edition of The Daily Sun, Kate Miller praises the contributions of area Democratic representatives to our political process. She stops short, though, of crediting them for voting lockstep to increase government spending at a rate greater than four times the projected growth rate of our economy and also neglected to mention their unanimous vote to downshift costs from the state to the county for elderly care.
This downshift will cost the county $241,348 for fiscal year 2014 and that plus an additional $272,834 in fiscal year 2015. Let us give credit where creit is due, Ms. Miller. After all, in the immortal words of your area Democrats, it only translates to a few dollars.
Rep. Dick Burchell
Belknap 5

Last Updated on Friday, 19 April 2013 11:48

Hits: 354

I assume Polidoro was not referring to winner of the marathon

To the editor,
On the afternoon of April 17, as I read Jack Polidoro's poem, I actually quite liked it, sorrowfully empathizing with his sentiments about this latest Boston Massacre. That is, until I got to the next to last stanza, where Jack revealed his true agenda. And I quote, "You selfish, simplistic, bastard of evil — Was it the taxes, anarchy, hatred for the black winner, America — What?
So Jack, as I sit this afternoon watching news reporters contradicting themselves about whether a suspect has or has not been arrested, let me make one likely assumption. While we don't know this person's evil agenda yet, I'm betting he hated this country rather than this country's president, as you suggest. I'm assuming you weren't referring to the marathon winner. Can I also assume by "anarchist", you were not referring to a "left wing" anarchist. Like the ones who tried to blow up the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. Or the violent elements of the Occupy Wall Street movement where an activist affiliated party tried to blow up a bridge in Cleveland and others where arrested for possessing high explosives.
I wonder if Jack made the "taxes" reference after hearing presidential senior advisor, David Axelrod and Democratic representative William Keating. The two liberal types who made the insinuation that since this occurred on "Tax Day", that may be the logical motivation for this atrocity.
The Heritage Foundation reported that there have been 40 foiled terrorist plots in the United States since 2001. Even though most of them were would-be Islamist backed terrorist groups, the liberal media and politicians impulsively jumped to specious conclusions about some right wing extremist group as the evil conspirators, which almost always ended up being completely spurious in nature.
Undaunted by facts and history, Chis Matthews, famed MSNBC news anchor, falsely blurted out the following, "Normally, domestic terrorists, people tend to be on the far right". We know that far right bloggers say off the wall stuff about the left, but I would hope that Fox News, reliable conservative websites and Republicans have refrained from making false claims against the left after a terrorist attack or murdering spree. Something that the mainstream media and some Democrats have no compunction with making against the right, time and time again.
Sad to say Jack, you really blew your chance at lyrical splendor. You wrote a poem of some import that appeared to be heart felt and I have no doubt that it was. But then you opted for the Rahm Emanuel, "never let a serious crisis go to waste" mantra by slipping in your tasteless slam against conservatives. I suppose it may be hard to avoid falling into this sort of liberal trap when you have such rotten role models. I suppose you could blame it on them. That would be the progressive way.
Russ Wiles

Last Updated on Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:11

Hits: 353

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

Login or Register