To The Daily Sun,
It is confounding to read and hear people who do not want to recognize and admit that government is excessively big. A recent column in The Laconia Daily Sun (August 26, 2013, Froma Harrop) attempts to justify electing the so-called moderate Republican thinkers who contributed to big government referred to as the longtime "older more marketable Republicans". A July 19, 2013 article discloses a Belknap County Commissioner calling the more conservative elected N.H. House of Representatives as "bad people looking to do bad things".
As the prominent economist Milton Friedman wrote in an essay "Why Government is the Problem"; "The major social problems of the United States — deteriorating education, lawlessness and crime, homelessness, the collapse of family values, the crisis in medical care — have been produced by well-intended actions of government." Throughout history, overgrown governments have failed while governments that take less from people in the form of taxes and allow free economic markets have prospered.
The many years of growing big government, overspending and redistribution of wealth has led to cities filing bankruptcy, a lack of full time employment, a reduction in private property rights, a larger spread between rich and poor, lack of privacy, etc. People of all income levels pay increasing direct taxes, indirect taxes and/or hidden taxes included in the price of products and services.
Reports indicate there are about 4.5 million people working for the federal government, surely a huge bureaucracy with hundreds of departments and agencies. Thousands of new rules are published in the Federal Register each year. The USDebtclock.org shows federal spending over 3.5 trillion dollars and the U.S. National Debt growing to nearly 17 trillion dollars. The debt increased about 6 trillion dollars just in the past five years alone. The State of N.H. spends more than 6 billion dollars per year.
Why are so many people continuing to be in a state of denial? Are politicians that convincing?
The government's use of "free" money grants, "outreach" programs and other manipulative techniques successfully persist to influence people toward acceptance of federal central government agency "programs" and ideas from Obamacare to workforce housing. For years, state, county and local governments added more employees and increased spending while establishing many superfluous programs, laws and ordinances.
Why do so many people believe that this oversized government is to their benefit? Do they really believe they are getting trillions of dollars worth of value from government or are they just afraid to confront this longtime trend? Perhaps they fear politicians will reduce proper government spending instead of eliminating the thousands of wasteful and unnecessary components.
Instead of realizing the problem, many continue to criticize and call others derogatory names such as bad people, idiots, anarchists and radicals for questioning government spending and regulations.
As the number of government workers increase and the more "free" money is given out, the harder it will be to address the problem since the beneficiaries will likely vote for more government and spending. Don't let it reach the point of no return.
Fortunately, there are N.H. State Representatives who understand the problem including Representatives Collette Worsman and Jane Cormier, who also oversee the Belknap County budget as delegates.
Moderate thinkers continue to "compromise" instead of solving the real problem. This is the reason government has grown so steadily for many years. Yes, a compromise that slightly moves to solve the overspending problem is good, but this will require numerous continual "compromises". Whether you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or Independent, vote for and support those who are taking the time and are brave enough to address the problem by promoting significant spending reductions in wasteful and detrimental government spending.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 September 2013 08:38
To The Daily Sun,
President Obama wants to "punish" Syrian President Assad for allegedly gassing his own people. But, will Obama's stated actions, which don't include regime change, really punish Assad, or will they more likely harm innocent people including foreigners, diplomats, or even Americans?
Has "punishment" that doesn't actually harm a nation's leaders ever resulted in policy changes? Not that I know about. If Assad falls and radical Islamists take over his gas stockpiles, the U.S. and the world are in greater danger than now.
President Obama and news sources allied with the rebels say Assad released the poison gas although they haven't explained his motive for this militarily unnecessary action. Assad, independent media, and a Russian study says the rebels (which include al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and people who butcher captives) released the gas, perhaps hoping to blame Assad and dupe the U.S. into helping them defeat Assad.
If the evidence of Assad's guilt is strong, why can't President Obama easily get a large coalition of nations to join his "punishment" efforts?
The benefits of President Obama's proposed actions against Syria seem miniscule. The possible negatives seem abundant: killing innocent people, damaging property of innocent parties, inciting military or economic retaliation by Syria or its allies increasing prices of oil and other goods, weakening our currency, and creating more terrorists who attack Americans, maybe with poison gas or other weapons of mass destruction.
While there seems little benefit from rushing to "punish" Assad, there are many benefits from delaying or not acting. We can await a thorough and factual investigation of the poison gas release. We save U.S. resources, avoid killing innocent people or damaging their property, we avoid inciting retaliation, and we avoid taking ineffective actions that make us look weak.
Delay offers the added benefit of allowing two U.S. enemies spend their resources, weaken each other, and become reduced threats to others.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 September 2013 07:47
To The Daily Sun,
Niel Young, as do many, sees what he wants to see. Or not see what he doesn't want to see.
Our Plymouth Common, Common People's Peace Vigil, began in February, 1998, during Democrat Clinton's presidency. We started when Clinton and Blair were going to start bombing Iraq that February. They were halted then by the UN's Kofi Annan, so that bombing was put off until December that year, when we all were (mostly all) distracted by holiday festivity. We did the vigil Saturdays through all of George W. Bush's presidency. We've done it through all of Obama's presidency. Other peace vigils continue throughout the state. I was part of the Veterans for Peace weekly vigil a couple of weeks ago, mid-week on Elm Street in Manchester.
The best don't-bomb-Syria reasoning I've seen is this from Ron Paul: "I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of U.S. bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by U.S. allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the U.S. allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria? For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?"
Thanks to Neil Young for giving me the opportunity to remind people to look around. I'll add that if I had my druthers, the money spent on launching missiles at Syria should be redirected to all neighboring countries who need help with wars' refugees, millions of displaced people in the Middle East.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Last Updated on Friday, 06 September 2013 07:40
To The Daily Sun,
Do you fish, hunt, hike, ski, boat, snowmobile or just simply enjoy the mountain views in Grafton County? If so, you need to be aware of the next few wind projects as they could affect you.
Have some of you have missed the two-way dialog put forth by wind developers? The truth is wind developers haven't spoken in months, perhaps it's because four communities have taken a "Not A Willing Host" stance.
Many of you have been asking NHWindWatch.org: What have the wind developers been up to? Are they waiting for summer residents to leave before making another announcement? Do they feel they even owe area residents a more complete explanation of their plans or how their plans will affect our property values, regional wildlife or our watersheds?
Many of you are starting to question — who are we accommodating here?
After all, it's our property investment rights that are in question here and with all due respect we were here first. We're talking about sweat equity! And we know the concentration of four wind farms, in a 15 mile radius, will surely impact us all. There's ample land out there across New Hampshire — we know we've done our part — so go somewhere else!
One thing is for sure — developers are not speaking. Why? What are they hiding? Are they changing their plans? Are they proposing taller turbines? More turbines? More wind farms? Or all the above?
We were all stunned by last falls announcements — will this fall be a repeat? I fear it will be...
Newfound Lake and the Mount Cardigan area is surly under attack... that much we know.
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:19
To The Daily Sun,
The letters to the editor lately from those who don't agree with the right-wing nuts have them all frothing at the bit.They all need to leave the horse pasture and get a breath of fresh air.
I would like to quote from Dave Schwotzer's letter. He writes that letters to editor continue to misstate facts to this newspaper. Mr.Schwotzer states that national debt rose $4.9 trillion over eight years under Bush administration. The truth is that on March 7, 2009 the national debt was $11.033 trillion. It is true that has risen $6 trillion during Pres. Obama's six years. It is also correct to say that two wars were going on and the country was going further in debt as there was no money to pay the country's debt.
I would like to remind the right-wing nuts again that the red states in this country receive more money back from federal government than they pay in. The last time I checked it was 31-cents more for every dollar sent in. The fact is that the red states are doing well, living off the money paid in by the blue states — or liberals as we are called.
I would like to ask Steve Earle and his friend one more time to explain what was the Bengazi scandal? I will ask one more time: why is it a scandal when a government employee killed in harms way is called murdered and a ambushed soldier is killed and no scandal occurred? If Special Forces had been sent in with no knowledge of the situation on the ground, got ambushed, would they have been murdered or killed? Why isn't the life of a military person just as important as that of a government employee? They both get paid by the federal government. I hope Steve and his friend Russ Wiles will explain the scandal. But if your answer is something you heard on the insanity show, forget it.
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:13