A+ A A-

Tea Party members have lots of very specific ideas for change

To The Daily Sun,

I was amused by June M. Huot's letter of April 14, 2015 requesting information about the TEA Party and making so many false assertions.
First, each TEA Partier speaks for him/herself or perhaps their local group, no one person or group speak for "The TEA Party" which is a movement of millions of Americans in thousands of individual groups.
We believe that our federal government today is bought (with political support) by special interest groups which have no concern for most Americans, or for the security and prosperity of our nation.
We believe that today's bought government is responsible for most of our nation's and our citizens' problems and that returning to government that works for all Americans requires adherence to certain principles including the rule of law, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and small, constitutionally-limited government.
Second, the TEA Party hasn't endorsed candidates for 2016 and no presidential candidates can speak for the TEA Party. Some candidates who might want TEA Party support may make silly statements. Huot reminds us of Governor Perry's forgetfulness which reminded me of Candidate Obama's claim that he visited "all 57 states".
Perhaps Huot likes our current income tax system with all its complexity, loopholes for special interests, worry about understanding ambiguous instructions, threats of fines or imprisonment, and the millions of hours and billions of dollars spent on compliance. Having recently completed my income tax, I think Ted Cruz's idea to replace the IRS with a Fair Tax or a simple tax that can be completed on a single page would be very welcome, and perhaps much fairer.
Huot imagines that she knows that Ted Cruz "likes shutting down the government", which is ridiculous since only the president has the power to shut down the government. It is Congress's responsibility to fund what Congress wants to fund. President Obama shut down the government to force Congress to fund what President Obama wanted rather than what Congress, the representatives of the American people, agreed should be funded.
I am amused to find that Huckabee's statement expressed exactly the opposite of what Huot claimed. Here is Huckabee's quote as reported in the Daily Mail: "If Democrats want to insult women by making them believe they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take this discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be." Huot's comments suggest she should agree with Huckabee's actual words.
Third, I am not aware of any TEA Party effort to "eliminate Social Security, Medicare, (or) Medicaid"; the TEA Party would like them to be fixed and solvent. Most TEA Parties would like to get rid of Obamacare because it hurts people, it isn't affordable, and government should not be between a patient and his/her doctor.
Fourth, Huot claims that TEA Partiers haven't offered any specifics. This claim suggests that Huot doesn't read letters from TEA Partiers or can't comprehend them. A few of my recent letters (3/21, 4/2, 4/9/2015) have identified a number of specifics for which I and most TEA Partiers fight: school choice (so each child can get a decent start in life), right-to-work laws (to promote job growth and make unions responsive to workers), approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (to create jobs, reduce energy costs and promote energy independence), reduction of excessive regulations (to promote job growth), and welfare reform (to keep families together and encourage work so people become self-reliant).
Other previous letters have, and future letters from me and others will identify other policies and legislation, typically with proven records of success, that I (and most TEA Partiers) support.
The TEA Party fights for a return to government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" so each American has a good opportunity to pursue, and hopefully achieve, their American dream.

Dow Ewing


Last Updated on Friday, 17 April 2015 09:44

Hits: 203

We lead the nation in working & on welfare; aren't you proud?

To The Daily Sun,

It seems on a daily basis that the Tea Party parrots amuse themselves by looking down on the less fortunate citizens of N.H. and this country as a whole. The one thing wrong with this country today is the obstruction and confusion caused by the right wing party.

In reply to Mr. Meade's letter printed in The Daily Sun April 16, I want to point to an article in the Union Leader on Friday April 17 (page one) titled "Working and on welfare: N.H. Tops." I will let everyone one read it for themselves. This is a shame for a state that ranks seventh richest of all states and is home to 34,000 millionaires.

To be continued in another letter. In the meantime, look it up (millionaires living in N.H.).

Henry Osmer


Last Updated on Friday, 17 April 2015 09:32

Hits: 133

Froma Harrop - Often there is no 'sensible middle'

Some time ago, I heard a power company executive arguing that humans have played no role in global warming. Actually, he went further, "demonstrating" that global warming isn't even happening. (This is often done by cherry-picking dates to start with an unusually warm year.) He ended by spreading his arms and beseeching us in his common-sense voice, "Can't we meet in the sensible middle?"

To which I thought, "If I say the moon is made of lunar rock and you say it is made of green cheese, is the 'sensible middle' that the moon is half lunar rock and half green cheese?"

That's the problem with sensible middles. You can't do the give-and-take without agreeing on facts. Nowadays, some of the thorniest problems get hung up on one side's dismissal (or corruption) of accepted science. We can compromise over how far our society will go in confronting climate change, but we must first agree it exists.

Thus, when we ask questions like "Would Hillary Clinton be a centrist president?" what do we mean by that? We can be sure that if nominated, Clinton the candidate will try to seem centrist, as will her Republican foe. Americans like the sound of moderation.

Some debates can't logically end in compromise. The right to abortion does not lend itself to concessions, making it a land mine for Republicans in a general election. Religious conservatives want abortion banned, but most Americans want it kept legal. So you have Republican candidates saying that they oppose abortion but would allow it in cases of rape and incest.

They may even paint others as extremist: "My opponent won't even make an exception for rape or incest."

In reality, the so-called extreme position is the only logical "pro-life" stance. If one holds that the organism formed at conception is a full human person, it is a full human being whether conceived through rape or through marital love. There is no biological difference.
I don't agree that two cells fused at fertilization are a full human being. I respect the views of those who do, but not if they won't accept the consequences of their position.

Another problem in reaching a sensible middle is finding the middle. Tax and spending policy is an area where compromise can be reached. But there's no middle to work toward when one side portrays any tax increase as a deal killer.

In 2011, eight Republicans running for president were asked at a debate whether they'd accept a deal with Democrats giving them $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. This would seem a conservative's debt reduction dream, but not one of the eight would say yes to it.

The candidates were surely mindful of President George H.W. Bush's electoral loss after breaking his pledge, "Read my lips: No new taxes." The elder Bush happened to be doing the responsible thing, but his party's right wing had moved fiscal management from the realm of political science to black-and-white religion.

Today this faction doesn't want its leaders to be seen shaking hands with President Obama, much less compromising with him on matters of substance. The outcome is Republicans disinheriting their own ideas because Obama has adopted them. The great example was the Affordable Care Act, whose blueprint came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Many Americans only pretend to seek a sensible middle by placing the middle in the middle of their stuck beliefs. No, it's worse than that. Many are scuttling rational thought altogether, accepting or rejecting beliefs not on their merits but based on who is holding them. The end product is neither a middle nor sensible.

(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)

Last Updated on Friday, 17 April 2015 09:27

Hits: 138

Can't have prosperous middle class without strong economic growth

To The Daily Sun,

Despite knowing of the "progressive" (actually socialist) domination in most American colleges and universities, I was shocked at the absolute fantasy worldview presented in Brandeis University Professor Kuttner's article (as described in Tom Dawson's letter of 4/8/15). Parents who pay for their children to be "educated" by such professors are being cheated, as are their children.

Aside from factual errors such as "higher education was free" in the 1950-60s and other false Democrat Party talking points, Kuttner's article is simply a partisan attack against Republicans and promotion of socialist ideas which have never improved the lives of most people. In fact, socialist governments created poverty and suffering for billions of people, and murdered at least 100 million people.

Six years of President Obama's policies interfering in our economy in ways that Kuttner approves have created a stagnant economy which is disastrous for most Americans. Median incomes are down about 4 percent while taxes and the cost of living increased, middle class wealth is down by about 40 percent, a lower percent of our people are actually working, and more Americans live in poverty and need government assistance to survive. But, Obama's policies have done very well for rich people.

For all my life "progressive" policies have made the rich richer but most Americans poorer. Politicians who really cared about non-rich Americans would abandon "progressive" policies.

In his April 3rd letter, Dave Pollak points out what has really hurt the American middle class, "Good American jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in steel, automobile, textile, electronics, and more." This fact is totally ignored by Kuttner (and Dawson).

The inevitable competition from European and Asian countries which rebuilt after WW2 does not fully explain the loss of so much of American industry and thus good American jobs. Government regulations, taxation, and other government intervention along with poor union and corporate decisions are major factors in the loss of American industry and jobs.

Government regulations add an average of 15 percent (usually more in manufacturing) to the cost of American goods and services. Excessive and wasteful regulations along with bureaucratic delays made many American industries non-competitive, forcing reduced wages, lost jobs, or both. (E.g., the multi-year hold-up of the Keystone XL pipeline; pay-offs to billionaire contributors Buffett and Tom Steyer and others) prevents creation of many good jobs, increases our energy costs, and reduces the safety of transporting oil which will be used whether there is a pipeline or not.)

High U.S. corporate taxes incentivize overseas investment, especially to supply foreign markets, and make bringing overseas profits home a bad business decision. Profits, which could be brought home and used to create jobs or pay taxes or stockholders, remain overseas.

Despite spending many billions of dollars, our increasingly poor education system and our 50 federal job-training programs fail to provide a labor force qualified for many American jobs. And, millions of legal and illegal, low-skilled, immigrants compete for the jobs which poorer skilled Americans need to learn the skills that allow them to get ahead.

For the first time in American history in the last few years more businesses have closed than have been created. America cannot have a healthy, growing, prosperous middle class without strong economic growth.

The return to prosperity for all Americans requires returning to policies that actually work to promote economic growth and wealth creation.

Instead of class warfare, successful people should be identified as role models for everyone to want to emulate.

Instead of demonizing job creators and implementing economic policies that drive businesses and good jobs overseas, we need policies that encourage more people to work to become rich by building successful businesses which create good jobs.

Instead of locking children in failing schools, we must offer parents the ability to direct the taxpayer money provided for children's education to the schools of their choice.

Instead of welfare policies that punish employment and split up families, leading to crime, drug abuse and more poverty, we need policies that keep families together and encourage work. President Clinton, other Democrats, and Republicans heralded the overwhelming success of "Clinton's" welfare reforms; President Obama abandoned many of those key reforms locking millions in poverty.

Americans aren't struggling because our country isn't socialist enough. Americans are struggling because our big, out of control government kills jobs, drives up Americans' cost of living, infringes on our freedoms, steals our opportunities, and makes it difficult for people, especially poor people, to learn the skills and get the jobs that enable their success.

Unfortunately Democrats have been joined by progressive Republicans (and some Republicans who surrendered to avoid charges of racism, hate, sexism, greed, etc.) in enacting the beneficent sounding progressive, big government programs that have hurt so many Americans.

The TEA Party is the only movement fighting for every American, current and future, to have the freedoms, opportunities, and success for which so many Americans have sacrificed their lives. Join a TEA Party and help us return to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Don Ewing

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 April 2015 07:39

Hits: 108

Not many meteorologists believe man-made climate change is dangerous

To The Daily Sun,

To question the validity of man-made global warming or as it's now called, climate change, as caused by increasing levels of CO2, is akin to "junk science" or "junk knowledge". At least that is the implication proffered by Professor Cracraft in his April 7 column. He goes on to say at the end of his column, "In America we value education, science and empirical search for truth but actions often speak louder than words."

But then, acting like Bill Nye, the comical science guy, Scott proclaims the following, "Many think that climate change is a hoax made up radical environmentalists in spite of the finding of 99 percent of climatologists." Hey Scott, climb off your unicorn for a second and try practicing what you preach. First of all, the goofy percentage often quoted is 97 percent not 99 percent. Maybe Scott misremembered John Kerry's use of that number while warning Boston College grads of the "crippling consequences of climate change." He must really believe Secretary Kerry when he warned us that "global warming is perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." Surely, Scott must know that this whole debate is more about "mass distraction" and "mass guilt-tripping", in order to give the progressive elites more time to bully and badger the masses for more money for "climate justice".

The 97 percent number came from a small and wholly inadequate sampling of scientists. Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute and Dr. Roy Spencer report that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. They go on to note that only 39.5 percent of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a 2012 survey believe man made global warming is dangerous. Scott probably is using the discredited United Nations International Governmental Panel on Climate Change and their doctored statistics and flawed climate models. Seems they have yet to answer the following question with any veracity: "How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions?"

Actually Professor Cracraft, water is the weather wildcard, at least according to Viv Forbes' Climate Change Digest. The past 17 years of rising CO2 levels without rising global temperatures would seem to indicate that the stuff we exhale cannot be the reason for global warming. Neither can it be bovine flatulence or pig belching for that matter. Viv goes on to note that "even if CO2 levels doubled overnight, most people on earth would not notice any difference."

You see Scott, most climatologists who are not sucking on the teat of the cash cow green movement, understand that "water covers over 70 percent of the globe, is about 50 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere and is a far more effective greenhouse gas".

So Professor Cracraft, just who is being "wacky" and just who is telling "big lies"? Oh, and just who are the real climate change deniers? I think Steve Goreham has nailed it in his book, "The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism." He says, "It's an ideology and it's a belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate." That way, folks who have been deluged with guilt for harming Mother Gaia will agree to adopt green economies — electric cars, giant wind turbines, giant solar panels, low flow toilets, squiggly, mercury filled light bulbs and soon temperature monitoring gauges in our homes. According to CBN News, the world already spends $250 billion a year on green economies. Who can forget the great success of Solyndra?

So where do the compassionate leftists come down on caring for the billions of poor across the planet who do not have adequate access to electricity? Wouldn't cheap electricity from coal be a godsend for these folks? Of course, but the wealthy elites will have none of that. The planet must be saved from an increasingly evident, non-existent crisis. Lord Christopher Moncton was worried about global warming caused by CO2 back in the 1980s. In a 2009 speech in St. Paul, Minn., that went viral, he revealed a secretive plan by the U.N. to establish an unelected world government that was crafted at the climate summit in Copenhagen. He has become a skeptic and is now far more worried about "global governance" than "global warming".

Do not hold your breath for Scott to come forth with any verification for his specious claims. Nor is it likely that he will apologize for his condescending remarks based on the "hoax of man-made climate change." Let's be real for just a minute, Scott. There has always been climate change and there always will be. Man's contribution to any global warming is minuscule at best. There is more evidence that we are entering a period of global cooling which will be far more deleterious to our environment, as past history has shown.

Oh and before I forget, I have good news for Lynn Rudmin Chong who is frightened about the melting at the poles. The Antarctic has record levels of ice while the Arctic has regained much of the ice lost over the past decade. You can now take a deep breath, Lynn.

The bottom line here folks is as follows, in my humble opinion. The good people of the 1970s and 1980s environmental movement have been co-opted by the eco-tyranny gang (read Brian Sussman's book of that name, if you dare). Their original desire for a healthy environment has been corrupted by the global elites overt lust for power, money and control. Lord Moncton is probably right on in his assessment about an unelected world government. That is what we all should be worried about.

Now, how to get Professor Cracraft to spend more time reading the works of Lord Acton and Lord Moncton and less time spent talking as though his best buddy is Lord Bumblebrook.

Russ Wiles


Last Updated on Thursday, 16 April 2015 07:17

Hits: 185

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