Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
(Poor Mr. Marsh continues to believe that Fosters has some obligation to be logical when bashing Democrats. - promoted by Dean Barker)
There was a recent post about a miserable editorial in Fosters attacking the recent budget and calling the Governor a scoundrel. The paper continues their unfortunate efforts with another silly editorial today, taking the Governor to task (yet again) over the state's attempt to use the JUA (medical insurance) money to help balance the upcoming budget. The title of the editorial is "NH is becoming a failed state."
The editorial argues that the state is not entitled to this money. This may or may not be true, and the Supreme Court will determine that in the near future. But by any possible measure can this issue make us "a failed state"? Somalia is a failed state. Afghanistan is a failed state. Zimbabwe teeters on the verge of being a failed state. New Hampshire is the opposite of failed- it is a relative oasis in a terrible economy. Someone needs to get Fosters' editorial writer some smelling salts- he seems to have a bad case of the Chicken Littles.
After excoriating the Governor for various imagined sins, the editorial continues:
The people of New Hampshire are increasingly bled of their wealth. The state and the nation have been deeply scored by economic pain not experienced since the 1930s. And government - instead of looking for ways to lessen the burden imposed on people - looks for ways to squeeze even more from those they are sworn to represent.
I thought I understood what was being argued- the paper wants the state to lower spending and taxes. I disagree, and a case could easily made why this makes no sense, but at least it is a consistent right-wing opinion. The paragraph could use the firm hand of an editor to reduce the melodrama and overstatement, but at least there was a thought in there. But then, it continues...
The state has forced cities and towns to increase property taxes by reducing historical aid.
This is ridiculous. The writer wants the state to cut taxes and at the same time increase aid to the towns? Does the writer know that the state has to balance its budget? Increased state aid for cities means increased state taxes, something they are against. Decreased state taxes means less money for towns, which they are also against. You can't have lower state taxes and more state aid, at least in the real world. This is not rocket science, even an editorial writer ought to be able to grasp this.
