To The Daily Sun,
This letter is to thank all the lovely staff at the Belknap County Nursing Home — Administration, Activities, Nursing
and Direct Care, Restorative, Kitchen, Maintenance, and Housekeeping — for all they do, and especially for the wonderful effort they made today to get my husband and other residents down to the parking lot by Route 106 where they could safely view the motorcycles.
It meant a lot to me because my husband always enjoyed watching the bikes and it was so good to see him taking part in watching the parade of two-wheelers again. The residents waved and shouted at the bikes and had a great time!
Belknap County, you are lucky more than you know to have these loving dedicated people serving you. And also
thank you, Charlie St. Clair, for stopping by to say hi to us all.
Last Updated on Friday, 19 June 2015 09:32
To The Daily Sun,
Dennis Prager recently reminded us that progressive liberals hate those who fight evil. The corollary to that is "liberals love those who commit evil".
President Obama, current acting executive director of this infamous club, has been busy with his "Cuba deserves our love and adoration" unilateral policy of appeasement to brutal dictators. Our president arrived in Havana in April for the Summit of the Americas at the ready to bow to another tyrant.
The Castro gang demanded that if the United States wanted to open an embassy in Havana, then they must remove Cuba from the list of terror-sponsoring nations. That would of course open the financial spigot of taxpayer funds to Cuba. The Cuban leadership said, "Don't be ridiculous," when we asked if they would return some of the convicted terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list. Well, after that tough negotiating by Team Obama, Cuba has been removed from that list of terrorist countries.
Who can forget Fidel Castro's comment in May, 2001: "The Islamic Republic of Iran and Cuba can play a significant role in international organizations through cooperation . . . We need to further boost unity to make the big powers understand that the era of bullying has come to an end." There have been reports of Iran allegedly using Cuba's colony of Venezuela as their secret site for enriching uranium, far away from prying eyes. Last month Colombian authorities found 100 tons of gunpowder, 2.6 million detonators, 99 missile heads and over 3,000 artillery shells hidden in a ship bound from Red China to Cuba.
"Two years ago, unregistered Russian missile parts found in a North Korean ship that had just left Stalinist Cuba and was bound for Stalinist North Korea were hidden under sugar sacks", according to Humberto Fontova.
Why has Obama been easing sanctions on Cuba since roughly 2009? Does our president believe that Cuba has earned our money and forgiveness for the easing of its torturous ways? Well, according to Mr. Fontova, who knows more about what is going on in Cuba than most, nothing could be further from the truth. "From 2009 until today, the Cuban people have suffered a wave of terror by their Stalinist oppressors surpassing most of the terror of the past decade, which is really saying something."
Besides the massive number of arrests and detentions by the Cuban police on peaceful Cuban demonstrators, six Cuban dissidents have been murdered — Orlando Zapata, Juan Soto, Laura Pollan, Wilman Villar, Oswaldo Paya and Harold Cepero.
Is our president not the worst negotiator ever? How is it possible that he loses every negotiation, negatively affecting our security and prosperity? How is it possible that the leaders of Russia, China and Iran are laughing at the fecklessness of Barack Obama? How is it possible that our allies have lost their trust and faith in the United States, no longer holding the belief that Obama will have their back when push comes to shove? Is Barack Obama just inept, or is he purposely bringing this country to its knees, believing it to be racist and evil as told to him by his pastor? Just why do liberal progressives appear to embrace the evil among us while attacking those who go into harm's way to fight evil? I have no idea. How about you?
A hat tip to Humberto Fontova for the above information about Cuba that our mainstream media prefers to keep hidden from sight.
Last Updated on Friday, 19 June 2015 09:27
In recent days, Republicans on the budget Committee of Conference finalized a budget proposal that is unbalanced and dishonest about what it funds. It also includes unpaid-for corporate tax cuts, creating a hole in this budget and in future budgets at the expense of critical economic priorities. For these reasons and more, I will veto their budget if it reaches my desk.
What this means is that the legislature needs to return to work immediately, prepare a continuing resolution that will fund state government in the short-term, and get back to the table and negotiate in good faith to develop a bipartisan budget that is fiscally responsible and that supports the priorities needed to keep New Hampshire's economy moving forward.
To keep our economy moving in the right direction, I proposed a fiscally responsible, balanced budget that was transparent and honest about how we would support critical economic priorities without an income or a sales tax. The plan that I proposed clearly set those economic priorities, including making higher education more affordable, strengthening public safety, ensuring access to affordable health care, and repairing our roads and bridges.
I have been at the table with Republican leadership and have been clear throughout the budget process about how we can achieve a bipartisan budget that addresses our shared priorities. Unfortunately, Republican leadership has refused to compromise on any of the major issues — most critically on a responsible way to pay for their unfunded tax cuts for mostly big corporations.
Instead, their fiscally irresponsible approach undermines our economic future by giving unpaid-for tax cuts to big corporations, mostly headquartered out-of-state, that will create a hole in this budget and a more than $90 million hole in future budgets. It puts big, out-of-state corporate interests ahead of New Hampshire's families, small businesses and economy, and only one percent of businesses – many of which are large multi-state corporations – would receive more than 75 percent of the benefits from the proposed rate reduction.
The Republican budget also fails to reauthorize our bipartisan health care expansion plan, even though leaders from both parties, the business community and the health care industry agree that it has been successful. This leaves more than 40,000 hard-working Granite Staters at risk of losing their coverage and creates uncertainty for all businesses and consumers.
And the Republican budget fails to live up to the fair contract negotiated in good faith with our dedicated public employees.
At the same time, the Republican budget is left unbalanced by relying on misleading budget gimmicks. It uses money from fiscal year 2015 that is already designated to pay this year's bills, and it does not honestly fund the services we all agree are essential to our people, families and businesses.
Without a plan for how we would pay for Republicans' corporate tax cuts now and in the future, we cannot sufficiently support the shared priorities that we all agree on. These are the priorities that are critical to our small businesses and families, and they are the priorities that businesses tell me are critical to their ability to grow, to thrive and to create jobs.
While maintaining our low-tax environment — which the Tax Foundation ranked as the seventh-best in the country in its business tax climate index — is critical, low taxes alone will not move our economy forward. We must also continue supporting priorities such as a strong and healthy workforce, a modern transportation infrastructure, and safe communities. Nothing in my budget proposal would jeopardize New Hampshire's status as having one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, but unlike the Republican budget, it responsibly and transparently supports critical economic priorities.
By failing to pay for their corporate tax cuts, the Republican budget is setting our state on a perilous fiscal path. It will make college tuition more expensive. It will hurt our ability to ensure that workers can access health care without financial ruin. It will lead to unplowed, unsafe roads for commuters and businesses. And it will not adequately address substance misuse even as we are in the midst of a heroin crisis.
Our families deserve better. Our businesses deserve better. And the hard-working people of the Granite State deserve better.
Republicans need to join me in putting New Hampshire's families, businesses and economic interests first, and I invite them to join me and follow the example of the people of New Hampshire, who work together to improve their communities every day. That's what Granite Staters deserve from their elected leaders.
(Democrat Maggie Hassan of Exeter is the governor of New Hampshire.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To The Daily Sun,
In 2013, the Winnipesaukee Public Health Council was developed to advocate for improved health outcomes and better coordination of services among public health partners. The council is comprised of community leaders representing multiple stakeholders from the towns within Belknap County, Franklin, Hill, Danbury and Northfield.
Representatives include leaders from municipal government, health care, social services, first responders, faith, planning, business, education, public health, elder services and citizens.
The council has identified priorities health issues in the region (based upon local health assessments). These priorities include:
— Access to health care.
— Assistance in navigating through the health-care system.
— Substance misuse.
Much progress has been made to ensure that all citizens have access to affordable health care. The New Hampshire Health Protection Program has provided health care access to people, many who have never had insurance before. Health literacy is provided through primary care practices and other programs to improve individual and community health outcomes. Community Health Centers (FQHC), provide the critical safety net with state support for those with very low income and social determinants of health compounding their personal health-care needs.
These improved outcomes will benefit individuals, families and assist in the economic vitality of our community. Please support the continuation of the New Hampshire Health Protection Program (NHHPP), and the funding of community health centers.
Navigating the health care and social service system can be a daunting task. Helping individuals and families identify their needs and assist them in connecting with services and supports are vital services for our citizens.
This is especially true in individuals/families seeking long-term care services. In a region that is getting older, these services are a lifeline, part of the safety net preventing more costly institutional care. Please support the continuation of the statewide network of ServiceLink Resource Centers.
Our family, friends and neighbors are reeling from the growing trend of substance misuse. Prevention treatment and recovery services are scant and are unable to service the growing demands for care. The impact to individuals, families, communities, and to our local economy is extensive. It is critical that we provide the services and supports needed to change the course of the lives of our citizens with addictive disorders. Please support the continuation of the New Hampshire Health Protection Program and support a substance use disorder benefit to those individuals on regular Medicaid for FY2017.
The collective result of the massive changes to the safety net would result in down-shifting to the local town services fire, police, welfare, which are already struggling with their own budgets. Not only will this be a burden to the county, it will not be a solution for the people affected. We know that in the past, down-shifting has resulted in no-shifting and the needs of the community members will not adequately be served.
As you know, the N.H. General Court Committee of Conference is currently addressing the FY2016-17 budget which will hopefully begin on July 1. We know how important these programs are to our community and hope that you will support them.
Thank you for your service to our community and for your attention to these important matters.
Members of the Winnipesaukee Public Health Council
Marge Kerns, Geoff Ruggles, Linda Ferruolo, Jim Wells, Ed Drury, Susan Smith, Melissa Lee, Richard Silverberg, David Emberley, Jane White, Jacqui Abikoff, David Emond, Susan Wnuk, Tim Kerns, Karen Grzelak, Kirk Beattie, Mckenzie Harrington-Bacote, Alida Millham, Shanna Saunders, Rich Crocker, Sally Minkow, Justin Slattery, Barbara Normandin, Dr. Jean Petterson, Jeff Hayes, Astha Joshi, Deacon Russ Morey, Margaret Labrecque, Robert Lucas
Last Updated on Thursday, 18 June 2015 07:33
To The Daily Sun,
This letter is in response to Robert Joseph Jr.'s letter in Wednesday's Sun.
Mr. Joseph, after reading your letter in its entirety I have to say that, on the face of it, it sounds logical even, though to me it appears to be driven more by emotion rather than reality.
Your solution to the funding problems you have outlined is nothing new. I've been hearing that as a solution to New Hampshire's funding problems for decades, yet here we are in 2015 and the state is still solvent, still able to provide services, though maybe not to the level that will satisfy you.
Your solution, a sales and/or income tax, has been used in many other states to solve funding problems. All kinds of claims for problems these taxes will solve have been made, running from, "It will lower the property tax/school tax burdens being faced by our residents," to "We'll be able to adequately fund all kinds of programs our residents need," to "These will allow us to reduce taxes in other areas" as well as many others along those lines.
The only problem I have found with these promises is that every single one was false. In every state that has imposed such taxes to solve perceived funding problems none of the benefits that were promised appeared, at least not for very long. Every single time the flood of those new revenues ended up being used for purposes other than for those used to promote the new taxes and the original problems remained.
One problem I have with broad-based taxes, specifically income taxes, is that it is far too easy to jack them up to almost confiscatory levels. We've certainly seen that, even here in the Northeast. The other problem is that income tax revenues are volatile, again as many states have found out to their dismay. When the economy goes into recession, so do income tax revenues.
While sales taxes may appear to be a more viable alternative, they can adversely affect retail sales when it becomes less advantageous to shop across the border, meaning in a state like New Hampshire, than staying home and shopping there. This was aptly illustrated when Connecticut raised its sales taxes to 6.25 percent (and for some items 7 percent) and people started crossing the border into Massachusetts to shop because the sales tax there was only 5 percent. Connecticut didn't collect nearly as much in tax revenue as projected.
Increasing or adding new taxes to raise more revenue is a short term means of increasing revenue, but in the long run it doesn't raise as much as proponents believe they will. If you really want to see an increase in state revenues the best solution is to do everything possible to expand the state's economy. That always does more to expand tax revenues than slapping yet another tax (or taxes) upon the public and is far less onerous and burdensome. That's where our state government should be focusing its efforts.
I can say I might support a sales and/or income tax, but only under these three conditions:
All such revenues would be mandated by the New Hampshire Constitution to specific purposes and any of those revenues being allocated to the municipalities would not be under the control of the Legislature, governor, or any state agency. This would prevent the use of such funds to extort municipalities into performing certain actions or instituting programs that aren't in the best interests of their residents, keeping the state out of local spending issues. All such funds would be "no strings attached."
The tax rates could not be changed without a supermajority (two-thirds or four-fifths) vote of the House and Senate, and such increases not to go into effect until the biennium following such a vote, requiring another amendment to the state Constitution.
The Business Enterprise Tax and Business Profits Tax would be repealed and could not be reinstituted in any form unless the income/sales tax were repealed, also defined by an amendment to the state Constitution.
Unless those conditions were part of such a tax scheme, there's no way we should ever consider it, period. Since it is unlikely that those conditions would ever be met, in my opinion, there's no way I would even condone such taxes. (Yes, that's why I laid out those conditions above as I'm pretty sure they would never make it through the Legislature as constitutional amendments, and hence, never be on a the state ballot to the voters decide.)
Government should always be held in check by making sure it does not have the funding it always believes it should have. (It always wants more). It is one of the only ways to make sure it doesn't expand beyond the bounds of common sense or to become so big and inertia-laden that it can no longer perform the functions it is supposed to in an efficient and effective manner.
We have numerous examples of what happens when revenue sources are expanded without tight restrictions on those revenues: More taxes, higher spending, and nothing to show for any of it other than bigger and less effective government.
Dale Channing Eddy
Last Updated on Thursday, 18 June 2015 07:23