A+ A A-

We need prodent effective government to help make our lives better

To The Daily Sun,

You might wonder how the Republicans in the New Hampshire House and Senate came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to blow a $90 million hole in our state budget by giving the money to large corporations in the form of tax breaks. The answer, apparently, is from the Koch brothers. According to reports, Greg Moore, a political worker for a Koch funded operation, was summoned by Republican leadership to a closed-door budget meeting. Why do they need a political operative to help them figure out how to make a budget? And, more to the point, why aren't they working with their Democratic colleagues in the Statehouse to craft a bipartisan budget that the governor can sign.

How did we get to this place where each side is so sure they are right and the other is dead wrong? I agree with Republicans that we have to be careful of big government, that we don't want government overstepping its bounds, that people can and ought to make decisions for themselves, and that we should keep as much of what we earn as we can. But, that doesn't mean that government doesn't work at all. We need a prudent effective government to help make our lives better.

Lowering taxes is one way to attract businesses, but good roads and a healthy, educated workforce are also important. Business agrees. According to the Business and Industry Association, the state Chamber of Commerce that represents business in New Hampshire, these things are important, too.

And, government exists, at least in part, to take care of our weakest citizens. There is no doubt that some people screw up their own lives, but life also has a way of beating on some folks who can use a hand. Getting sick can happen to anyone. According to a survey done by the Health Policy Center, almost 10 million fewer families are feeling the stress of unpaid medical bills since the implementation of Obamacare. Having insurance lowered their life stress which is a good thing. That seems like a win for government to me.

The governor's budget is reasonable and responsible. It pays for things that we need and programs that work and it doesn't make someone else pay the freight.

Dave Pollak

Last Updated on Monday, 29 June 2015 08:36

Hits: 221

Bob Meade - The road to serfdom

In her latest "coming out" announcement, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton gave an hour-long pander performance to all those who desire the government to provide for their well-being. Nauseating though it was, I listened as she told of what she would do for each group to make them "equal". Along the way, she also gave us an indication of her callous disregard for the First Amendment to our Constitution. Of course it was too much to expect that she would enlighten us on how her generosity would be paid for. Nor did she tell us why she has chosen to eschew the American dream in favor of what she calls equality. Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Obama, probably applauded her ability to prattle on about everything except personal responsibility and the American dream.

Winston Churchill once stated something along the line of, you can tell a lot about a country based on whether or not people were trying to get into it, or get out of it. He was speaking about the United States and its promise of the American dream. A place where immigrants could enter, not knowing the language and with little or no money, and struggle to find work to earn the money needed to support their families. In their early years of struggle, they learned the language and, in those years, they sent their children to school, where they too, learned the language and assimilated themselves into the communities. Some of those children often learned the trade skills of their fathers or other journeyman trades, and others went on to college to earn degrees and become professionals. (Back then, colleges didn't have fees that would bankrupt a moderate or low income family.)

In those earlier days of struggle, some things became predictable. For example, the immigrant families worked hard and were prudent with their earnings. They would pool those earnings and put aside money with which to buy a lot, and then to build a house. Most often, the house was a two family home and the mother and father would occupy the first floor and the eldest son and his family would occupy the second. As the mother and father aged, the eldest son and his family were there to take care of them. And, when they passed away, it was often the eldest grandchild who moved in to continue the process.

Common among the immigrants was the respect for work. No job was too menial not to be respected. To be without a job meant you were spending all day every day looking for work. If there wasn't a full time job, you would seek out a day labor job to do. You didn't quibble over the amount you were to be paid as there was always someone else ready and eager to step in to take your place. Those daily struggles never ended because there was always more to be done . . . another child to raise, money needed to fix or replace the furnace, the need to make room for a widowed aunt to move in, and more. You see, it wasn't the government's responsibility to raise that child, or to provide for that widowed aunt, or the aged parents, it was a family responsibility. Nor was it the government's responsibility to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, telephone service, and myriad other things.

Today, we seem to have lost respect for the things that made this country great. Instead of respecting and encouraging work, we tell people we will make them "equal". If we don't encourage learning and work, but we expect everyone to be "equal", that can only happen if we diminish the status of those who sought and achieved some higher level of achievement.

In recalling history, the Pilgrims initially tried communal living, where everyone contributed to the common store of foods and other necessities needed to get through the winter. But not everyone contributed their "fair share" as some chose not to work as hard as did others. But when winter arrived, those who had not worked hard or contributed much, expected to receive a "fair share" of the labor of others. The Pilgrims soon abandoned the each to his own ability, each to his own needs scenario. But today, our political leaders on the left are trying to convince us that we should ignore what the Pilgrims and those who lived under communism discovered about communal living. Rather they want the country that birthed the "Greatest Generation" and led the world in personal achievement, to try again to substitute group obeisance for personal responsibility.

We, the citizens, need to be careful of what politicians may be promising. What on the surface may sound like a harmless platitude is in reality a road not to achievement, but to subjugation of our personal desires and ambitions to the whims of government . . . a road to serfdom dictated by the non-elected bureaucrats who will spell out your rules for life.

(Bob Meade is a resident of Laconia.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 213

A realy lose-lose situation: loss of liberty & loss of quality medical care

To The Daily Sun,

Paula Trombly expresses her sheer joy for "The Supremes" saving Obamacare one more time. She finds triumphant joy with this victory for President Obama by using lyrics from a big hit by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons — "Oh What a Night" indeed. Little does she know, apparently, that this may be a victory for our president, but it is a crushing defeat for our constitutional republic. Not to mention quality health care.

You see Paula, the Supreme Court used to be about dedication to the law of the land. But now it has become an activist choir in black robes singing the praises for dictatorial power within the executive branch. Gone is the "one of a kind separation of powers" that has made this country the fairest in all of the land. In its place is that most dreaded of progressive beasts — ever burgeoning centralized power.

Democrats tout the amazing fact that 16 million more folks now have health care. Of that tiny percentage, how many are happy with what they have? And what of the rest of us, or the 95 percent who will be paying more and getting less quality of care.

Insurance companies and bureaucrats are burying doctors and nurses with time-consuming paperwork. The result is less time to spend with patients, so better order more costly tests, just in case. Between staring at the computer screen and filling out forms, physicians will have less time to actually diagnosis the real problem and so will end up more often treating symptoms and prescribing medications. The underlying cause may miss proper diagnoses as insurance companies are interested in numbers of patients seen rather than proper treatment.

Loss of liberty and loss of quality of medical care. A real lose-lose happenstance just occurred today, June 25th. I have a golden oldie song for Paula. "My World is Empty Without You" by The Supremes (pun intended). More of us will lament — "And as I go my way alone, I find it hard for me to carry on. I need your strength, I need your tender touch. I need the love, my dear, I miss so much."

Soon, long gone will be that personal touch that we have for so long cherished from our family physician. "Inside this cold and empty house I dwell. In darkness with memories I know so well." Will those memories soon be lost and forgotten? Or will we hear the sounds of another Supremes hit — "Working My Way Back to You"?

Will the citizens of this country find the gumption to fight back against this socialist dragon and its quiver of poison pills? Or have we lost the will to be responsible stewards of our constitutional republic. Are we content only to desire what is in it for me, accepting the false promises of the ruling elite who care not a whit if we remain healthy and fit?

Paula, I'm afraid you have been deceived. The promises of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are not to be believed. As for the Supreme Court, look into the mirror and check out the lyrics from "Reflections" — "reflections of the way life used to be. In you I put all my faith and trust." Start doing the job our Founding Fathers entrusted in you. Please.

Russ Wiles

Last Updated on Friday, 26 June 2015 10:41

Hits: 248

Religious fundamentalists started the abolitionist movement

To The Daily Sun,

Well by now it must be apparent that white radicals are roaming the land like wolf packs hunting down black people. That's if you believe the narrative being spread by Obama liberals — and who could ever question the accuracy from that source? Never mind the long, rich, proven list of outright lies from them it's different this time. Riiiiight! Lefty will provide readers with numerous references all from impeachable liberal sources of which there are no shortage. (Yes I meant impeachable) But how about we look to an unbiased, independent sources for the facts.

Let's try the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) for a little clarification on the matter. FBI stats collected by them show that where interracial violent crimes are committed over 80 percent are blacks on white. Less then 20 percent are white on black. Kind of blows the liberal narrative out of the water and has to make the honest news consumer question the honesty of our mass media, doesn't it? Well it should but you don't have to believe me just look it up yourselves on your PC, or one at the library.

Moving on, I feel like popping another liberal balloon. To hear them tell it, the Democrats are the saviors and protectors of the black, downtrodden peoples. Really though that's another myth spread by our so very truthful liberal progressive politicians. History says that's not so.

Way back in the 1840s it was religious fundamentalists that started the abolitionist movement (abolish slavery). It was abolitionists who formed the Republican Party, fought a civil war, passed constitutional amendments to give equal rights to blacks. On the flip side it was Democrats who opposed them, divided the nation in civil war, created Jim Crow, separate but equal and it was Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest CSA who founded the Ku Klux Klan. He was also a pledged delegate to the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

Democrats controlled Southern states after reconstruction and saw to it blacks were denied the rights to vote, get an education, kept illiterate and poor. Even back in the 1960s it was primarily Democrats who opposed the civil rights laws that were finally passed. Look to Wikipedia which gives a list of prominent opponents to the civil right laws. Out of a list of 80 only 10 are Republicans the rest are Democrats. Even until today with liberal Democrats constant promises to the black communities to improve their lives and rights while demonizing conservatives the lives of blacks are far far from those promises it seems to me.

In fact it looks as though the KKK in its highest days could only dream of how low black communities have been reduced from their hopes and dreams. How could these villains of old possibly imagined getting so many young black men to go around killing each other. How could they have convinced young black men to father so many black babies then leave their young black mothers to fend for themselves doomed to poverty and dependence. And who is it that glorifies these choices except white progressive Democrats.

And they call the Tea Party radical.

Steve Earle


Last Updated on Friday, 26 June 2015 10:30

Hits: 146

We have repeatedly shown Iran that nukes are only way to survive

To The Daily Sun,

American lies have taught the Iranian government that visible nukes are their only protection against erratic superpowers.

Although Mr. Bush's 2003 invasion didn't make Iraq give up nuclear weapons because we couldn't find any, early in 2004, Moammar Gadhafi, the tyrant of Libya, gave up his nuclear program under American pressure. He had had a lot more nuclear material than we'd thought — he had 4,000 centrifuges and plans for a bomb that were nearly complete.

Mr. Gadhafi was close to having a bomb, but he saw what we'd done to Mr. Hussein. He didn't want to give up the leverage that nuclear arms would give him, but he folded when we told him we wouldn't go after him if he stopped playing with nukes.

When Mr. Obama took office, Mr. Bush's "surge" had pacified Iraq and neutralized Mr. Gadhafi's nuclear threat. Mr. Obama could get back to fighting what he called the "important war" in Afghanistan. He quickly found that making peace in Afghanistan would be a long, hard slog.

Then, as if he hadn't enough on his plate, Mr. Obama went to war against Libya even though Mr. Gadhafi had decided to play nice. What happened? The French urged the rest of Europe and America to take out Mr. Gadhafi because he'd started killing so many more of his citizens. Mr. Obama "led from behind" by supporting European bombing efforts. We also did a lot of the bombing when the Europeans ran short of ammunition. How Mr. Gadhafi must have wished he'd spit in Mr. Bush's eye and kept his nukes!

The Wall Street Journal reminded us that in February and March of 2011, Hillary "was reportedly a leading advocate within the administration of military intervention against Moammar Gadhafi" in spite of our promising to leave him alone if he came clean. Her gung-ho position was the opposite of Secretary Colin Powell's, who warned his boss, "If you break Iraq, you own it."

As we should have learned from Iraq, killing the tyrant who kept Libya stable let it fall apart into warring factions, one of which murdered our Ambassador. ISIS has become active there. Mr. Obama and Hillary broke Libya so they own it, but we've never heard that pointed out in the mainstream media.

By killing Mr. Gadhafi after we'd taken away his nukes and not defending the Ukraine against Russian aggression as we were required to do based on a treaty we signed when we persuaded them to give up their nukes, Mr. Obama demonstrated to all the world that nukes are the only security against lying superpowers.

Our actions in Libya and our lack of action in the Ukraine mean that nothing will persuade the Iranians not to build nukes. The ayatollahs know that not even Mr. Obama would have bombed Libya if Mr. Gadhafi had kept his nukes.

They'll promise anything to play for time, just as we promised the Ukraine that we'd defend them if they gave up their nukes. Based on our irrational attack on Libya and our breaking our promises to Ukraine, the Iranians know that highly visible nukes are their only guarantee of relative safety.

Can you blame them? We can't. Our government is not only allowing an aggressively evil regime to acquire nuclear weapons, we also repeatedly showed them that nukes are the only way they can survive. The true blame is entirely ours. With respect to both Libya and the Ukraine, Mr. Obama lied, and countless millions will eventually die. If you ever hear that pointed out on the news, we'll die too, of shock.

Bill Taylor
New Hampton

Last Updated on Friday, 26 June 2015 10:25

Hits: 146

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