In this part of our site we present individual writings and viewpoints to help foster and promote political discussion about subjects relevant to the community.

Monday, April 23, 2007	Minority Leader Michael D. Whalley	[ + ]
Gov. Lynch Wants it Both Ways: Civil Unions and Gay Marriage
Minority Leader Michael D. Whalley NH Also to Recognize Gay Marriages from Other States Concord— Republican leadership is disappointed in Governor Lynch’s decision to sign the proposed civil union bill currently in the Senate. The legislation discriminates against heterosexual couples and recognizes gay marriage simply by calling it a civil union and applying current New Hampshire marriage laws. This directly contradicts the governor’s belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. “It was our expectation that the governor would work with the Senate to improve this bill,” said House Republican Leader Mike Whalley. ”At the very least, civil unions should be available to all committed couples whether or not they are of the same gender. We should never prevent any two people from caring for one other.” HB 437, which passed the House with 97 percent support of voting Democrats, provides that a civil union or a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman legally contracted outside of New Hampshire shall be recognized as a civil union in this state. This legislation discriminates against heterosexuals. “If the governor really does believe that this is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination, then he should support letting anyone enter into a civil union, not just a same-sex couple,” added Whalley. The bill also recognizes out-of-state gay marriages as civil unions. “Once again the governor is contradicting his earlier statements that marriage is only between one man and one woman.” According to a recent poll conducted for the Concord Monitor by Research 2000, only 35 percent of New Hampshire residents support gay marriage. “If most people agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman, why would the governor support a bill that is really marriage between same gender couples simply by calling it a civil union?” Whalley asked. “When people understand this bill for what it really is, gay marriage, they will oppose it as well. You cannot recognize same sex marriage from another state as a civil union. And we cannot recognize in-state same sex marriage simply by calling it a civil union. It is clear that the civil union bill that he will be signing, as written, is equivalent to a same sex marriage bill. He can’t have it both ways.” “I think the numbers are clear, New Hampshire citizens do not want civil unions, they are not comfortable being at the front of the pack creating such controversial public policy,” said Republican Policy Leader Gene Chandler. “We have a group of people who have complained of being discriminated against for years, now supporting a bill that is very discriminatory against a large segment of our population,” added Chandler.

Monday, April 23, 2007	Rep. Jason Bedrick (Winham)	[ + ]
Labor Unions' Agenda Items
Rep. Jason Bedrick (Winham) The House Labor Committee heard SB 88 relative to public employee term of employment, bargaining units, and dispute resolution. The labor unions are out in force to support this piece of legislation which will hurt our towns and taxpayers. Why, because this bill would reduce the minimum number of employees needed to form a union from 10 to just 3. This means the road crew in your town could unionized if there are at least three workers. In theory, just two of these employees would then be needed to vote in favor of joining a union to form a union. Call to action: We need you to contact your town governments and representatives to voice your concern over this bill. An extended hearing will be held next Wednesday, April 25th in the afternoon. Nashua Telegraph Article: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770419019 Other concerns on SB 88: SB 88 poses a number of 28a "unfunded mandate" issues and threatens to fundamentally alter the nature of our local government system. SB 88 changes the minimum number of employees needed to form a union from ten to THREE. Furthermore, the "communities of interest" in the bill are so amorphous that they could include dog catchers, administrative assistants and others in the same bargaining unit. SB 88 removes the ability to determine the number of employees needed from managerial prerogatives. This means that outside groups could violate the will of the voters through lawsuits to increase the number of town and municipal employees. SB 88 would mandate "evergreen clauses" that would guarantee annual wage increases for employees if no contract agreements could be reached. This would eliminate the imperative for any negotiations on the part of employees. SB 88 would include undefined "safety considerations" under "terms and conditions of employment", reducing the authority of town administrators and voters to determine policy. SB 88 is a threat to our towns and cities; it is easily one of the worst bills being considered this session. Best, Rep. Jason Bedrick Windham, NH Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Wednesday, April 11, 2007	Kerry L. Marsh	[ + ]
Budget Release and Roll Call Vores
Kerry L. Marsh Republicans Fight to Hold off Tax and Fee Increases Democrats Push Through Increases to Support 16% Budget Increase Concord-One by one Republican attempts to amend the House Budget Trailer Bill (HB2) and prevent a multitude of tax and fee increases failed today in Concord. Republicans stood united in opposition to the Democrat majority's tax and spend budget which includes $223 million in tax and fee increases that translates to an increase of $142 for each man, woman and child living in New Hampshire. "This budget includes higher taxes and higher fees that will have an adverse affect on every taxpayer and will have a negative impact on the New Hampshire advantage," said Republican Leader Michael Whalley (r-Alton). "I am proud of our Republican caucus for holding firm to our fiscal conservative values our 2006 campaign promises of fiscal responsibility." Republican members brought forth several floor amendments to shine a light on specific tax and fee increases contained in the Trailer Bill. Representative Gene Chandler (r-Bartlett) spoke out against a registration fee increase of $6 per car and $200 per heavy truck. "Motorists are already facing higher fuel costs as are New Hampshire businesses that rely on the trucking industry. This fee increase will only hurt our citizens and business community." said Rep. Gene Chandler (r-Bartlett). Republicans first attempted to reduce the Democrat-proposed increase in the cigarette tax from 45 cents to the 28 cents originally proposed by the governor. "No matter which way you look at it, we are making smokers tax scapegoats. This will not result in less smoking, but rather will hurt the small businesses in the state," said Rep. David Hess (r-Hooksett). Another amendment was offered by the Republicans to eliminate the 45 cent increase altogether but was defeated by the Majority party. Democrats are penalizing those that can least afford it. This tax increase will not only reduce out-of-state cigarette sales in New Hampshire, but will also create a $152 million loss in sales and other goods and services as a result," said Rep. Kevin Waterhouse (r-Windham). New Hampshire sold 8.3 million fewer packs of cigarettes following the 28 cent increase during the last biennium while, at the same time, Massachusetts increased sales by 7.3 million packs. A floor amendment to eliminate the 4 percent increase in the Real Estate Transfer tax, which is already the highest in the nation, was also defeated by the Democrats. The revenue will be dedicated to funding LCHIP. "We all believe in LCHIP as a great program. I am one of its biggest advocates. But this tax increase is the wrong approach," said Rep. Neal Kurk (r-Weare). Republicans also attempted to overturn an education formula proposed by the Democrat majority that would give communities their current funding level plus 5 percent or their projected 2008 funding level, less 5 percent, whichever is higher. "This is an arbitrary and capricious formula that has no logical, rational or methodical distribution formula," said Rep. Hess. The Democrat education funding formula would give more money to rich communities like Bedford and Amherst while taking away money from the poorer communities such as Claremont and Pittsfield. "It would also be irresponsible to change the education funding formula after most of our towns and cities have passed their school budget," added Hess. "It is unfortunate that the Democrats have turned their backs on New Hampshire taxpayers and businesses with their actions today," said Rep. Chandler. The Republican minority was prepared to offer alternative budget language in order to send a balanced budget to the Senate for their consideration." "This budget penalizes our poorest citizens and our poorest communities. And this coming from Democrats," concluded Rep. Neal Kurk (r-Weare) of the House Finance committee. -30- In addition, the roll calls for today's votes are can be found at the link below. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/rollcall/rollcallsbyvotesummary.asp?legislativebody=H Explanation on HB 2 amendments: The Republican minority brought forth several floor amendments to shine a light on the specific tax and fee increases and the spending increases of this budget and companion Christmas tree bill. 1) Floor amendment to eliminate the $6 per car and $200 per heavy truck registration fee increase. "Motorists are already facing higher fuel costs as are businesses that revolve around the trucking industry. This fee increase will only hurt our citizens and business community," said Rep. Gene Chandler (r-Bartlett), a member of the Public Works and Highways Committee. This amendment failed along party lines 149-202. 2) Floor amendment to reduce the increase in the cigarette tax from the proposed 45 cents to the Governor's proposed 28 cents. It was argued by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (r-Manchester) that no increase is desired but at least 28 cents would maintain the state's price advantage over neighboring states. "No matter which way you look at it, we are making smokers tax scapegoats. This will not result in less smoking but, rather, in hurting small business," said Rep. David Hess (r-Hooksett). This amendment failed 93-268. 3) Floor amendment to eliminate the Democrats' proposed 45 cent increase in the cigarette tax. "Democrats are penalizing those who can least afford it. Under both of Governor Lynch's budgets we have targeted a shrinking population and hurt small business owners. This tax increase will not only reduce out-of-state cigarette sales in New Hampshire but will also create a $152 million loss in sales of other goods and services as a result," said Rep. Kevin Waterhouse (r-Windham). New Hampshire sold 8.3 million less packs after last biennium's 28 cent cigarette tax increase while Massachusetts increased its sales by 7.3 million packs. This amendment failed 165-197. 4)Floor amendment to eliminate the 4% increase in the Real Estate Transfer tax, which is already among the highest in the nation. This revenue would be dedicated to funding LCHIP. "We all believe LCHIP is a great program. I am one of its biggest advocates. But this tax increase is the wrong approach," said Rep. Neal Kurk (r-Weare). This amendment failed 162-197. 5) Floor amendment to keep the current education funding formula. The formula proposed by the Democrat Majority will give communities either their current funding levels plus 5% or their projected '08 funding levels (under current law) less 5%, whichever is higher. "This is an arbitrary and capricious formula that has no logical, rational or methodical distribution formula," said Rep. David Hess (r-Hooksett). The Democrat education funding formula would give more money to rich communities like Bedford and Amherst and take money away from poorer communities like Claremont and Pittsfield. The Republican effort to show that changing the funding formula after most of our towns and cities have passed their school budgets is wrong and irresponsible failed along party lines 156 to 207. All efforts to improve the budget trailor bill for taxpayers and the business community failed. Kerry L. Marsh Political Communications Spectrum Monthly & Printing 95 Eddy Road Suite 101 Manchester, NH 03102 Phone: (603) 627-0042 Fax: (603) 627-1637 Cell: (603) 582-0119

Wednesday, May 04, 2005	Union Leader	[ + ]
Illegal Alien Pleads Guilty to Trespass
Union Leader Click here to read the article.

Sunday, January 30, 2005	The Nashua Telegraph	[ + ]
Iraq Election
The Nashua Telegraph To the Editor: Like love of family and children, love of freedom transcends country and culture. The Iraqi election is a measure of freedom's progress and renewal. While much is left to be done and rough days lie ahead, this is yet another milestone to be chalked up for freedom. I invite all 'nay-sayers' and the rest of us needing inspiration to take stock in the importance and reality of these historical events. In particular, this election is a lasting tribute to those who have given 'their all' for freedom. Let's remember and say a prayer for the service men/women and civilian workers who died or continue to serve to make this day a reality. Remember the Iraqi voters who were killed for trying to vote. Their families will forever bear the unbearable and we owe them a debt beyond measure. One of history's lessons is that people and leaders must take risk to overcome oppressors. Bad guys have to either gain "amazing grace" or be vanquished, usually the latter. The Iraqis got out and cast their votes for the first time in several generations with a voter turn out at least on par with our own. As one Iraqi characterized it, "I come to the polls to make a New Iraq". An Iraqi grandmother had her grandchildren carry her to the polls so she could cast her vote for the first time in her life. She shed tears of joy for her achievement and for hope renewed for her grandchildren. At an Iraqi mosque in the neighboring Iranian capitol of Tehran, Iraqi ex-patriots voted by the thousand. Before the day was out, hundreds of voters were seen dancing and celebrating around the mosque. What a message for the Iranians. The future holds what this will mean to the Middle East and the rest of the World. However, the watershed parallels between the Berlin Wall falling and the Iraqi elections are obvious. Like Iraqi voters, I have to think that the first person who got on top of the Berlin Wall and started to stomp on it had to climb up there with fear and trepidation. So inspired, next came out the sledgehammers, smiling border guards and then cranes with wrecking balls. Before the week was out, the oppressive symbol was pulverized and transformed. Now the view of people atop the Berlin Wall is a universal symbol of freedom. It is an inspiring moment in history. As freedom took hold in the Eastern Block nations, Poland became one of the strongest economies in Europe and one of our strongest allies. We can only hope, but cutting and running didn't get us here. It was a native son of Poland (Copernicus) who dared to use science to prove the world was not flat. Perhaps the sons and daughters of the "Cradle of Civilization" are upon a similar renaissance. For certain, freedom kindles many things. I find it both ironic and inspiring that the Arabic word for "vote" also means "voice". Thanks & Regards, Doug Davidson

Saturday, January 12, 2002	Lowell Sun	[ + ]
Enron and Social Security- Forebodingly Similar?
Lowell Sun To the Editor: When the facts around the Enron debacle become known (there were six congressional committees investigating at last count, each with their own budget and staff of lawyers) we can count on the Congressional "heralds" to cry for the heads of parties found involved with criminal activity, if any is found. This is as it should be. But just like many Enron employees wanted "out" of Enron stock as it was crashing, many of us want "out" of Social Security. This same culture of Washington squanderers continues to ignore the greatest Ponzi/Pyramid scheme in history- our doomed Social Security System- and they won't let us out either! Even through the din of rhetoric around this subject both the Republicans and Democrats agree that this System WILL go broke in its current form. It's just a question of when. Washington's raiding of Social Security and spending our savings on pet projects over the last fifty years hasn't helped matters. However, the changing age demographics of our society assure that the current Social Security System will be crashing on the reef of failure in most of our lifetimes. US Government estimates state that by around 2040 two workers will be supporting five retirees.(?) I submit that anarchy will reign before this happens. At this point, it should come as no surprise that there is nothing "safe" about a pile of unsecured loot left in the hands of folks with the same fiduciary responsibility as drunken pirates about to go on shore leave. These "pirates", surely, are the greatest threat to our retirement years and lifetime of hard work and they still want to keep the rest of us rowing below decks. By contrast, look at the overwhelming evidence as to the benefits of group privatization typified by the retirement funds of the employees of Massachusetts Water Authority, NY State Teacher Retirement System or the City of Houston Employees retirement funds, as examples. While their members are mandated to put away the same rate of saving amounts that Social Security dictates to the rest of us, they were given the option to NOT be part of the doomed Social Security System. As a result, many of their everyday "working stiff" members are retiring as either millionaires or nearly so. The difference is their retirement accounts benefited from: the right to choose, professional investment advice and the market's historically significant higher returns. And because these account funds are assets that the individual (or their heirs) owns, nobody was "borrowing" from their funds and putting in worthless IOU's. Putting together regular contributions over 30-40 years leveraged by compounded market interest and the millionaire-type returns are inevitable. Look at fifty years of history and do the math. It is about time that we demanded that our elected officials get their hands off our money and get their hands dirty with starting to work on solving this problem. Any politician who defends this status quo or who says privatization is a "risky scheme" must be sent packing - (Marty Meehan is such a politician). The Bi-Partisan Presidential (Moynahan) Commission recently delivered an extensive study determining that we must provide the option of privatization now as private accounts can deliver 5-6 times the returns of Social Security. We had better make some changes relatively soon otherwise that "reef" looms larger each day and our chance to avoid it grows smaller. Let's all watch the Enron situation with interest and see which of our leaders talk of the parallels of Enron and our current Social Security mess. Those who speak of the similarities of Enron and Social Security are the leaders we should look to that have the best chance to help us get out of this mess. Doug Davidson