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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


Pres. Obama destroyed the best health care system in the world

To the Daily Sun,

Attorney/Professor Pollak seems to want to continue the spitting match. Unfortunately, he seems to be of the mindset that prefers not to be confused with the facts, as his mind is already made up. So, here we go again ...

The Attorney/Professor claims the Bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy. The facts are as follows. Prior to President Clinton leaving office, the Internet "dot-com" bubble burst. It had a devastating effect on the economy and federal revenues dropped from $3.676 trillion in 2000 to $3.528 trillion in 2001. (Please note that President G.W. Bush has never "blamed" President Clinton for the problem. Passing blame seems to be a genetic deficiency of those on the left.) In 2002, after the terrorist attacks in 2001, Federal revenues again declined, this time to $3.299 trillion.

In 2003, the Bush tax cuts began to turn around the falling revenue picture and revenues increased to $3.457 trillion. Revenues continued to rise as in 2004 they were $3.891 trillion, 2005 increased to $4.243, 2006 to $4.696, and in 2007 the tax revenues reached $5,170.6 trillion. That track produced fifty straight months of revenue growth.

In 2008, the housing bubble burst and revenues dropped to $4.667 trillion. The attorney/professor might want to do a little research on how that "bubble" came into being. It actually started during the Carter administration when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed. It had a noble purpose . . . to try and provide mortgages to those at the lower end of the earnings scale, and was backed by the government's Fannie Mae program. During the Carter and Reagan years, little was done to "enforce" the act but, when Clinton became president, a strong push was made to put it in play. Banks were pressured significantly by the government to give out loans to people who really were not qualified or able to pay a mortgage. That led banks, who knew that the mortgages were fragile at best, to bundle mortgages into securities and peddle them in financial institutions.

Attorney/Professor Pollak can find a pretty good history of the CRA in Wikipedia. (Please note, President G.W. Bush once again failed to lay the blame for the financial collapse on his predecessor.)

Now, as to Mr. Pollak's claim that our medical system wasn't working . . . pure hogwash. As to medical costs "skyrocketing," he might want to look into the need for tort reform. A while back, in response to politicians wanting to be able to have insurance sold "across state lines," I did a little research on what would happen if that was made possible. What I found was that the costs of malpractice insurance are not consistent from state to state. Some states are much more litigious than others. For example, an OB-GYN in Minnesota may pay $14,000 to $17,000 annually for his or her malpractice insurance, while the OB-GYN in Florida however, may be faced with a cost of $200,000 or more. These differences have caused many physicians to stop practicing medicine. Selling insurance across state lines will penalize citizens in all those location who now pay less because of lower malpractice insurance costs.

The Obama administration chose not to include any tort reform measures in the PPACA. People might want to know that the State of Pennsylvania instituted a small tort reform step in that state, independent of the Federal plan. It was a law that simply required that for a malpractice claim to be filed, the litigant must show that the Doctor did not follow established medical practices and, the law suit must be filed in the county in which the alleged malpractice occurred. That simple, honest, and straightforward law reduced malpractice lawsuits by 46 percent in its first year.

As to the attorney/professor's claim that there were too many uninsured, he might take note that the initial "need" was to insure the approximately thirty million people who were uninsured. However, a subsequent study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that when the PPACA is fully implemented, they expect there to be thirty one million uninsured.

As to the overall problems with Obamacare, there are too many to mention and comment on. However, if you have a leak in a bathroom faucet, you don't tear out the entire bathroom and build a new one . . . you fix the problem with the leak. Obama chose not to address the problem(s); he chose to destroy what was arguably the finest health care system in the world, to satisfy his desire for a legacy.

Ronald Reagan said it best, the government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.

Bob Meade

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 270

Democrat or Republican, big money wins and middle class loses

To The Daily Sun,

Just some observations. They attack Donald Trump because they say he is degrading to women. Tell me I'm wrong, but isn't having mistresses and committing adultery degrading to your wife? Yet from Franklin Roosevelt to John Edwards from Kennedy and back again to Clinton, adultery was the word of the day. These men trashed the institution of marriage, publicly lied to protect their false image but they were never accused of being anti-woman by the general public. Why are these men highly regarded while an admittedly unpolished candidate is crucified for comments which although brash, they are less offensive to me than men who don't say similar concepts publicly, but privately their actions prove they harbor little regard or even a minimal level of respect for members of the opposite sex? I just think the public perception is askew.

The deal with Iran infatuated me at first. I thought it was a great moment for our country to strike a deal with a country that we have thought as an enemy for so long. I believed the Republican backlash was over-the-top and that it was about time we extended the olive branch to another Middle-Eastern country in similar regards of those like Turkey and Jordan.

Make no mistakes though, I know now it was a mistake of epic proportions. The Supreme Leader (which frankly sounds like a comic book bad guy title), Ali Khamenei, signed the nuclear program deal, lifting sanctions and thus giving Iran billions of dollars. Then he went on to address his country vowing to defy American policies in the region despite the deal. At this speech he clapped and fist pumped to a deafening chant of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Basically all this deal does is give Iran money with no checks or balances and we expect them to open their families doors and break bread with us when in reality they pretty much all want to kill us. Great deal.

The middle class is headed to extinction. A recent study pointed out the median level of income in Laconia, and, what do you know, my combined income with my wife was less than a $1,000 off from the exact middle-middle class wage. It's no fun here as we take nothing from the government but carry the weight of many on our shoulders. Recent example, we had to take our daughter to Convenience Care because she had some skin grow over the back of her earring and we couldn't get it off. We spent 20 minutes in a hospital room, 10 of which we were seen by health care workers. Granted they were very helpful and pleasant, but a month later we got the bill for over $200. On top of the fact that we pay over $400 a month for health insurance (which we didn't use for anything else that month), that means we paid over $60 a minute to get our child some help.

I'm sure Obamacare is helping somebody, but it clearly is not the middle class. Add to that the fact that we are taxed by the government for everything from our cell phone use to gas consumption to steaming a lobster at the supermarket and it's getting a little ridiculous. Our vacations have been whittled down to a day hike on Mount Major. Now we have an impending tax on the Internet coming up, which will be politicized and in the end spun to make it sound as though it is inevitable while some government cronies pad their bank accounts at the expense of the middle class yet again.

Perhaps I'm being a curmudgeon, but when you constantly have to swim against the waves just to keep your head above water it starts to wear thin on you when the political season revs up. It's all rhetoric and posturing, with little in the way of results. Democrat or Republican, in the end big money is always the winner and poster children for the middle class like me are the losers.The will of the people means jack-squat nowadays and for anybody who thinks differently I can draw countless examples from my well, but we'll save that for another day.

Thomas Lemay

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 190