To The Daily Sun,
Nick Vazzana's letter of December 14 claims Republicans have changed since 1860.
But, like in the 1860s, Republicans are fighting Democrat policies which enslave Americans. Democrat (progressive) policies lead to economic slavery by locking students in bad schools that don't adequately prepare them, by destroying jobs (via excessive regulations and taxation), and by increasing peoples' living costs (e.g., food, energy, insurance, medical care, taxes).
President Obama's policies have increased, not reduced, the gap between rich and poor! More Americans are in poverty than ever before. Progressive policies hurt people!
Vazzana complains about Republican investments. Grassroots Republicans only approve of investments that benefit the vast majority of Americans. Most beneficiaries of Democrat "investments" are the people or groups that help Democrat politicians stay in power, i.e., rich donors and special interest groups.
The "investments" (bailouts) for the financial institutions, GM, and Chrysler resulted in major transfers of wealth from middle and low-income Americans to the rich and special interests (mostly supporting Democrats). Taxpayers lost about $12 billion on the car company bailouts although the companies went bankrupt anyway (showing that bankruptcies don't mean the loss of all jobs).
President Obama's "investments" in many technology companies went to political donors, were high risk, and are likely to lose taxpayer money, like the $500 million Solyndra "investment". Many "investments", like high-speed rail and alternate electricity generation companies, will always require subsidies, like the Postal Service and Amtrak, or increasing customer costs.
All government spending needs scrutiny because progressive policies have already put our nation in a precarious financial position. Our national debt, a small fraction of our nation's gross domestic product (GDP) in 1860, now exceeds our GDP and our total obligations exceed six times our GDP. Our nation's interest cost is a large budget item and could become a major problem.
The charge that Republicans want the country to go bankrupt is an often repeated, total lie told by people wanting continued reckless spending. Currently there is more than enough money to pay our debt obligations.
Everyone, President Obama, former Treasury Secretary Geitner, economists, etc., agrees that our enormous deficit spending cannot be sustained. Yet only Republicans are trying to save the American people, especially the poor and middle-income Americans, from the harm caused by the inevitable, excessive debt caused, disaster.
If you want good opportunities, freedom, and prosperity for yourself, your children and future generations, then you need to support conservatives. Only conservatives have been fighting for the policies that ensure a free and prosperous future, policies that create a rapidly growing private sector with good jobs producing goods and services that Americans and people around the world purchase.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 11:01
To The Daily Sun
Some questions about the proposed Winnisquam Regional School District teachers' contract:
Our school board must do a better job keeping us (taxpayers) informed about goings-on in the district. The front page article highlighting the tentative WRSD teachers contract negotiations left a great many questions unanswered. Since we would all benefit hearing directly from the "horses mouth," I am hoping that the board chairman, Mike Gagne, will directly answer the following questions:
1. What reason(s) does the WRSD school board have for requiring taxpayers to allocate more money for district salary and benefits?
2. What evidence do you have that WRSD has a difficult time filling teaching positions that justifies this agreement?
3. What evidence do you have supporting the idea that we have a hard time retaining teachers BECAUSE of salary?
4. Do we have difficulty filling some positions more than others, and if so, why not tailor a contract solution that addresses that specific challenge?
5. Does the board feel our teachers are staying employed too long and is that why we need a $6,000 incentive to retiring teachers?
6. Did the board do a cost-benefit analysis replacing higher-paid experienced teachers with lower-paid learning teachers?
7. And finally, assuming you don't have the data, why did you agree to a contract that takes more money from the district's taxpayers?
These are just a few of the questions taxpayers might consider important as they await their tax bill calculations and the district meeting.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 10:56
To The Daily Sun,
I recently listened to the first airing of the Belknap County Delegation's discussion of the 2014 Belknap County budget. (The delegation consists of elected state reps, majority Republican and is chaired by Rep. Colette Worsman-R.) Most of the hour showed differences of opinion on using or not the subcommittee process of the past. Rep. David Huot-D supports the subcommittee process, and when a motion was made he clarified that the wording included "may or may not include subcommittees." This clarification was needed because Chair Worsman, calling for the vote, asserted that it could just include "no subcommittees."
She so clearly wants to hasten on to the cuts, that Rep. Ian Raymond-D said, "We need to have subcommittee meetings to give the department heads a chance to plead their case before the executioner's axe comes down on their department budgets."
I sympathize with our hard working county department heads, for Worsman, sitting in charge, seems the classic tyrant, a la Alice in Wonderland's awful queen.
This same Republican majority once before cut, cut, cut the state budget, shifting those costs to the counties and towns. Still powerful in the county budget process, they now insist on cutting funds needed for adequate services to our citizenry, including: correctional facility, county attorney's office, human services department, registry of deeds, youth services, nursing home, and our sheriff''s department. Also auxiliary agencies: Cooperative Extension, Conservation District, Economic Development Council, Genesis, Community Action Programs, and Lakes Child Advocacy.
One newspaper reports that our county's credit rating is now the lowest it's ever been, after last year's budget cuts.
We need moderate people to serve our county, sensible representatives. "To serve" certainly is a special phrase and an important role requiring good judgment skills. Rather than have our county stunted to the detriment of our citizenry, it could be supported and thrive, with moderate representatives at the helm.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 10:52
To The Daily Sun,
In order to understand how we got to where we are today from being a nation in which Christianity exerted a central influence, you need to understand a peculiarity about our American culture. I outlined in my last letter (11/30/13) the process that caused the influence of Christianity on our culture to be weakened, but the push that began the actual severing of that influence depended upon a quirk in American culture that you might not notice if you've never experienced life in another culture. The Frenchman and historian Alexis de Tocqueville toured the U.S. in 1831. As a result of this visit, Tocqueville wrote the now famous historical work, "Democracy in America". In this commentary on our then fledgling nation, one of the things he notices is that though we in America have by constitutional guarantee freedom of speech, in our culture we draw a circle around what is acceptable speech and any speech that falls outside of that circle is ridiculed and not taken seriously. Please stop and ponder this phenomenon for a few moments, for once the truth, by consensus, is removed from the center of that circle; a nation so constituted is in trouble.
Another thing that deserves some serious contemplation is the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When I first started paying attention to political thought one of the first constitutional controversies that I was made aware of was the question as to if the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment was to be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause together read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Just by the hermeneutics of these two clauses it is the establishment clause that should be narrow in its application for it states specifically that this restriction is for Congress. Congress is the branch of our federal government that writes legislation, therefore it would seem permissible to conclude that its intent was to forbid our federal government from interfering with religion. More then that I'm afraid is to try to fashion it's meaning to suit ones own opinion. On the other hand, the free exercise clause hermeneutically is broad. Again this is for Congress, our federal lawmakers. Clearly this amendment was to keep the federal government out of religion, not just religious opinion either for the clause specifically states that Congress shall not interfere with the "free exercise of religion". With the matter stated so clearly in the amendment itself the only restriction the federal government should be allowed to place on the free exercise of religion is if a religion engages in an activity that is without controversy wrong like murder and stealing, etc. Then for the court to apply the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion) through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, to the states — which the court has been doing since 1947, which is a whole other letter — the equal protection clause says, "nor shall any state"... "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", is to run afoul of the 9th Amendment which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If I am not mistaken up until this time the people had retained the right to the free exercise of religion. For the more local the government, the more closely the government reflects the will of the people and consequently unless these state and local governments are free to work these religious issues out themselves there is no free exercise of religion, not in the public sphere. And in effect, holding to the application of these amendments in this manner, to borrow an allegory from George Washington, has been to create a tool to remove the threads of religious piety from the fabric of our nation.
The 1962 Supreme Court case of Abington School District v Schempp (this case was an application of the principle discussed above), the case in which the Warren court ruled that state sponsored school prayer was "unconstitutional", on the pretext of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, for as it was, a student could be excused from the Bible recitation in question, in school with a note from his parents. No one was forced against his will to participate in them. If there had been forced participation, I believe the exercise would have been in violation of the free exercise clause, here the court would have had legitimate constitutional authority to intervene through the equal protection clause, and the opinion of the court does lip service to this view, but then turns around and hamstrings the state and local governments with adherence to the establishment clause which they had no constitutional authority to do. The 9th Amendment forbids it. The objection was that those who did not participate in these exercises would be made to feel like outsiders, not part of the group. Please, no matter what the consensus is, to what is true, someone is going to feel like an outsider. Please let us now go back to Tocqueville's observation of acceptable speech. For in our culture there is going to be a circle drawn around acceptable speech. What the Warren Court did in banning these Scripture readings from our public schools was to insure that Scripture reading would be outside of what would be acceptable speech for the generations to come. What the court decreed was that Christians were to be the outsiders in our schools, even were they held a majority. I find it hard to believe that these judges — eight of them voted to ban these Scripture readings — did not know what they were doing, for Tocqueville's Democracy in America would be standard reading for someone studying law. This I believe was the main thrust of a stroke to sever the influence of Christianity and consequently God from our culture. Also you might note that Supreme Court justices are quite likely to have spent many years in the school system heavily influence by secular-humanism that I talked about in my last letter.
If God and the publishers are willing I will bring this back to Duncan v State of New Hampshire in my next submission.
Last Updated on Monday, 16 December 2013 11:13
To The Daily Sun,
Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend the memorial service for Ray Burton at Plymouth State University. Kudos to the university for arranging such a wonderful tribute to Ray! He would have been so pleased and honored to see so many Republicans and Democrats in one room together.
From the president of the university to one of Ray's interns, every speaker had their own unique perspective, but the theme throughout was a continuous acknowledgement of Ray's commitment to the people of the North Country, District 1, and the entire state. He set a standard of excellence that all public servants should strive to achieve.
Ray was a mentor and a friend to me and to so many others — he will be sorely missed, but not surely not forgotten.
Senator Jeanie Forrester
N.H. State Senate, District 2
Last Updated on Monday, 16 December 2013 10:56