BankofNH DreamBig 728x90

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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


State income tax necessary if we are going to meet budget needs

To The Daily Sun,

Once again the state Legislature has put needs of their concept of reality before the needs of the citizens of the state. The governor, reluctantly, has signed on to a hacked-together budget compromise. Everyone agrees that taxes are just about the worst way to collect money. It ranks right up there with begging. Unfortunately both are used by those who need for whatever reason need some help to get by on the margin of poverty, to be educated, to supplement inadequate care for their children and an allowance to medical needs.

If I may, let me point out some ways their budget fell short. The obvious problem is they didn't adequately plan for the payment for the needs they are trying to ignore in hopes they will go away. Can anyone defend cutting taxes in the face of so many glaring needs. Here are some of the ways they made changes to fees, not taxes. New Medicaid enrollees can be ignored for a couple of years because it is 100 percent funded by the federal government. User fees are popping up all over the place.

One that really galls me, an old-timer, is the announcement that fishing license for those over 68 will now cost $10. It has been free for about 20 years. The Fish and Game Department has been using volunteers for all sorts of things that would be left undone because of lack of staff. Now, after volunteering for some task, I can't go down to the riverbank without paying the state $10 a year after I have registered boat and trailer for about three times that amount. I am not overly fond of fees. You can't even park without paying a fee at some of the states recreational facilities.

Someone has to do a needs analysis for the state government. What are the fixed costs of running the various departments. A few years ago there was a court case that was trying to answer the question: What is an adequate education and what does it cost. I don't think we ever solved that little conundrum. They weren't even addressing the college cost and how to address them.

What about the roads and highways in the state? How many bridges are being ignored? How many roads formerly maintained by the state are now the responsibility of the towns? Can the towns afford that cost? The state's dirty little secret — cost-shifting to the counties and the towns — is revealed as we at the local level struggle to make sure we tax our real estate to cover the needs.

We also run food banks in church basements to provide an adequate diet for those that state is failing in provide for in so many ways. To sum this up for all those legislators who still have a conscience, there is a solution based on the age-old concept of fair taxation. User fees have their place but fair taxation is the solution. Taxes should not fall on those already in need. Business profits can be taxed but that is not the most fair tax. At some point we have to face the fact that large individual incomes should be taxed at a rate equal to that paid out by the vast majority in federal taxation. Yes, the dirty word in New Hampshire, income taxation is long overdue if we are going to address budget needs. Local real estate can't stand another jolt. So let's get real during the next budget go-round. Some of you may take some heat but who knows, some of us will be cheering as we go to our well deserved lunch at the senior center.

Bill Dawson


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 487

Why would the Catholic Church endorse the theory of evolution?

To The Daily Sun,
James Veverka I think, thinks himself to be a paragon of knowledge and wisdom. Yet in my experience with him, he never digs deeply enough into a subject that he writes about to actually understand the matter for which he purports to have this great knowledge.

He writes about intelligent design and the theory of evolution. His letter is actually a response to my previous letter, but he won't write it as such because in so doing he would need to respond to some valid observations concerning the theory of evolution that I brought to the readers' attention. He would rather pretend that the things that I wrote about do not exist. That saves him from having to respond to them. He then just launches out with his boilerplate definitions and explanations, and there is no dialog.

I will digress here for Jim starts out telling us about Alabama's new science and education standards. Just what does that have to do with the matter. I acknowledge that if not the whole world, most of it is moving in the "progressive" direction as I write. Yet, I think this quote is apt here, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." If the whole world believes that man has descended from an amoeba and someone says no, God created each according to its kind that would seem revolutionary, even though it is true. Citing Alabama's science standards here is kind of like the kid whose parents won't let him go to a particular party, and he says, aw, but all the other kids parents are letting them go. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument. It is strictly about peer pressure: well if they're doing it, it must be right. But its not, and the party gets busted and two kids die of an over dose of heroin at it. So it is with Jim's pointing to Alabama's change in standards. By the way all the changes do not have to do with evolution or climate change.

As most who read my letters know, I'm a creationist. But the discussion here turns to intelligent design which is a different view from mine, but how it is treated by the scientific community is instructive. The persecution of those who have been bold enough to consider this concept openly, in the scientific community, I have eluded to in my two previous letters. Here Jim is at best ignorant or at worst not forthcoming. He would do well to try to understand a concept before he writes about it, instead, he says that, "Intelligent design assumes as certain fact that there is a God and then tries to build a case within that box." Rather it is the "study of patterns in nature that are best explained as and result of intelligence" and it "is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation." as apposed to, assuming that we are here through "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection."

Jim says, that the idea of irreducible complexity always crumbles when examined. I'd like to see him defend that assertion.

Jim says that science is neutral on the creator. I would like him to show how this is possible when the theory of evolution creates a historical narrative in which one is forbidden to consider the creator's creative power and design. How is that being neural on the creator? Evolutionists will only ever give you double talk on that. Or some will recommend what type of faith is compatible with the theory of evolution. Does that sound to be neutral on the creator? We accept Him as we find Him. Not as someone would wish him to be.

This brings to mind a point Jim makes in his letter. Some Christians hold to the theory of evolution as actual. This letter is already longer than I would like, so I'm going to pick an easy target for an example here, the Catholic Church. No offense to my Catholic brothers and sisters. While nuns and priests at the local level fight valiantly against government usurpation of religious freedom, the Catholic Church endorses the theory of evolution, which is the foundation for the doctrines that their ministers are struggling against. These and all like them are those whom I would like to reach. For to agree with evolutionists in their grand theory is to make common cause with those who would destroy the church.

John Demakowski

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 392