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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Everyone knows Treasury can't unilaterally change tax laws

To The Daily Sun,

Let's take a peek at the might-makes-right culture at the core of the federal government today. A week ago Monday the Treasury Department released sweeping new regulations. They have effectively rewritten the tax code to make it even more difficult for U.S. companies to escape the double taxation on overseas earnings.

Tax law should come from Congress not an Executive Branch agency. America already has the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly double that of Europe. One would think if growing the economy were a valued goal the action indicated would be to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate. That is the opposite of what the administration has done.

It appears the administration wants to make it even more costly to do business in America. I'm not seeing how this in line with the best interests of the people of America. You cannot make businesses want to stay in America by raising taxes... duh. And what happens to our economy and our tax base when they are gone? There are reasons why Congress debates policy and law.

Not to be outdone, the bureaucrats at the Department of Labor (DOL) published 1,000 pages of new regulations, collectively called "the fiduciary rule," targeting the investment industry, making it more expensive and less likely Americans will save for their future. Working Americans already have enough obstacles preventing them from saving for retirement or accumulating a nest egg against unexpected financial hardships. These new regulations only further discourage private savings. Don't we want people to be more self-reliant? Why is keeping everyone hand-to-mouth a good thing?

As harmful as these policies are for American families and businesses that are treading water in the long stagnant economy, the more important issue they raise is the abuse of power that created them. In 2014, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said, "We do not believe we have the authority to address this inversion question through administrative action... That's why legislation is needed."

This was not a groundbreaking statement: Everyone in the District of Columbia knows that the Secretary of the Treasury does not have the authority to unilaterally change the tax laws. And yet that's exactly what he did this week. He abandoned his scruples, betrayed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and usurped Congress' rightful role in writing tax policy in order to score political points.

The Secretary of Labor has no legitimate authority to regulate the transactions between brokers and their retail clients as it does with its new fiduciary rule. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010 explicitly authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission to perform the function. Yet, the DOL stepped in to fill what it saw as a regulatory void. Say what? No authority but they do it anyway? When did we forget about the rule of law and start operating with a pen and a phone?

This is not how government is supposed to work. The rules and regulations governing American society and most especially those that have a major impact on our economy must be debated and passed by elected members of Congress, not negotiated by industry insiders and unelected regulators behind closed doors. You have congressmen and senators. It is campaign season. Have you talked with your representatives about why they are allowing this kind of behavior? If not, why not?

Marc Abear


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 227

The left lusts to completely edadicate God from the public square

To The Daily Sun,

Todd Welch claims to not understand what I mean when referencing the "left" versus the "right." Though Todd writes as though he is reasonably intelligent and though I have offered numerous examples in my letter, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and give it another try at clarifying the difference between the two.

If one looks at the salient points made by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement versus the Tea Party (TP) movement, a stark difference presents itself. If one looks at the difference in the manner that the OWS and BLM movements conducted themselves in the public square, versus how the TP conducted itself, it is easy to discern how the first group was hell bent on destruction of people's and property and how the second group was focused on leaving people and public property unharmed and intact.

While the TP movement seeks to restore the principles of liberty and our constitutional principles, the other two groups act in a manner that anarchists or fascists would admire. While the TP movement wants to return power back to the people along with responsible stewardship, while attempting a return to a more limited government, the OWS and BLM movements seek to give more control to the government, while demanding free stuff and even less accountability for their actions. That is one example of left versus right.

Another measure of right versus left is to take a look at the moral compass of the two political opposites. The right continues its attempt to cling tenaciously to its Judeo/Christian values. The left eschews those values more and more, preferring the "if it feels good do it" philosophy of moral relativism and secular humanism which I believe began around the 1960s.

Todd, you might want to check out a book by Paul Johnson titled, "Modern Times" — From the Twenties to the Nineties. I wholeheartedly agree with many of his conclusions, especially this one: The most hopeful trend of the '80s and '90s is the continued strength of religion, which hopefully can reteach humanity moral principles and so avert so much political violence." We are not talking Islam here folks.

Todd, the left believes that all religions are equal and all cultures are equal. The right thinks that is a bunch of poppycock, pure jabberwocky. In other words, pure nonsense. The left believes in stifling free speech. One only needs to look at college campuses across the nation to understand that. Apparently, professor Cracraft believes just the opposite, ignoring the examples exploding across the blogosphere and other media outlets. Tony Boutin recently cited facts alluding to the massive left-wing bias in academia.

The left lusts to completely eradicate God from the public square, which has been the basis for our commonality over the past two plus centuries. As Janice Shaw Crouse notes, "there was respect for each other based solely on the certainty that God created us as equals. We are seeing that there is not much left when there is no basis for mutual respect." Almost half a century of multiculturalism and moral relativism have undermined this foundation in favor of sex, drugs and rock and roll.

The Woodstock, "free love" movement of the left jettisoned moral restraint. The multiculturalism movement of the left has jettisoned the unifying, "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of Many, One," in favor of a divisive culture of "us versus them" self-serving interests and enclaves of peoples who have no desire to integrate into our culture.

While the left claims to push for inclusiveness, their actions speak of divide, conquer, exploit and exclude all who will not succumb to its socialist, statist, centralized, Marxist, progressive, modern day liberal ideology. "Out of Many, Identify Politics."

Well, there you have it Todd. This is how I see the difference between the left and the right. I hope that this helps to clear up your confusion about the point that I was trying to make.

Russ Wiles

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 191