About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
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

It's an Election Year

by: susanthe

Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 12:46:07 PM EST


( - promoted by Dean Barker)

an editorial in today's Conway Daily Sun.

Economists are quick to tell us that our economy is showing signs of recovery. This seems to mean that Wall St. is doing well. Main St. doesn't seem to be ready to tap dance just yet. The unemployment rate for New Hampshire was seven percent in January. Those statistics are skewed to be lower than the real numbers of unemployed. They don't count folks who haven't been able to find a job long after their unemployment benefits ended, or those who weren't eligible in the first place. The real number is perhaps as high as 14%. More NH families are using food stamps than ever before.  Our homes aren't worth what they used to be, though foreclosures seem to be slowing down.  In other words, for the most part, the news isn't good. NH folks are having a tough time, and tough times always seem even tougher in the north country.  

susanthe :: It's an Election Year
In response to these tough times, the Republicans of our legislature spent last summer coming up with legislation aimed at solving NH's economic woes. Apparently the cure for a bad economy is forcing women and girls to bear unwanted babies, and to deprive gay folks of the right to marry. Another important piece of legislation is being developed by local Representative Gene Chandler, who is working on a bill that would repeal an earlier decision by the Legislative Facilities Committee to ban guns in the State House. This is being presented as an issue of Great Importance, one that gets to the very heart of our freedoms in NH! This is being presented as a partisan issue - those evil Democrats would deprive you of your right to bring your gun to a state building!

What Representative Chandler isn't telling us, is that guns were banned from the State House from 1996 to 2006. Chandler has served 12 terms in the NH legislature. He was speaker of the House from 2000 to 2004. He was the ranking House member on the Legislative Facilities Committee for 4 years during the original ban.  During this time, Representative Chandler never filed a repeal bill. The oft-touted concerns for the safety of the staff and other legislators took a long time to develop. Fourteen years is a very long time.

In other news, Representative David Bates of Windham launched a campaign called Let the People Vote. In response to our state's economic woes, Rep. Bates has chosen to attack marriage equality. He's pushing to get a petition to get a warrant article on every ballot of SB2 towns, and put before every town meeting. This is aimed at pressuring the legislature to pass CACR 28, an amendment to the NH Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.  At the recent CACR 28 hearing in Concord, Representative Bates dismissed the suggestion that he's taking any money for this, and said that he's paid for all of this out of his own pocket. It is interesting to note that the PAC created for the Let the People Vote campaign is registered to Rep. Bates, and at the website, there's a convenient button to push to make donations. Representative Bates also seems to be involved with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) an out-of-state group based in New Jersey. NOM was heavily involved in the California and Maine anti-marriage equality campaigns. They're rather secretive about where all their money comes from.  There are deep suspicions that NOM is a front for the Mormon Church, and its very deep pockets.  In any case, most of the towns that have dealt with this petition so far have voted it down. Rindge, Rindge, Rye, Winchester, Alstead, Deerfield, Bethlehem, Goffstown, Wolfeboro, and Londonderry all voted against discrimination.

"Let the people vote" has become the new slogan of those who would enshrine bigotry in our state constitution. The supporters of this effort will bellow at length about the Constitution - both state and federal. These people don't understand the concept of representative democracy at all - and feel that somehow they've been treated unfairly by not being allowed to vote on this particular issue.  I heard Rep. Bates say he was not opposed to putting slavery and interracial marriage to the popular vote. The Bill of Rights was never put to a popular vote.  A number of the same folks who wail about their right to carry a gun into the NH State House are the same ones who want desperately to vote to discriminate against gay people. The Second Amendment was never put to a popular vote. Funny how those who go on about the Constitution are perfectly okay with that piece of representative democracy, considering that some of them would have been denied the right to vote at the time the US Constitution was ratified. Should we let the people vote on the Second Amendment?  Ending slavery was never put to a popular vote, nor was desegregation, the voting rights act, or the 19th Amendment, for that matter. Catholics were banned from holding office or teaching school in NH until 1877. The framers of the Constitution understood the tyranny of the majority.

Meanwhile, the sky has not fallen since January 1, when gay couples began to marry. Those who would discriminate tell us of the need to "protect" heterosexual marriage. I haven't heard a single story of a heterosexual couple divorcing because of gay folks getting married.  The sky didn't fall when slavery ended, when women stopped being male property, when integration came to pass, or when the laws against interracial marriage were overturned. This is just another step forward into a less discriminatory world. We will all have the chance to vote against going backwards - something NH has so far refused to do.

At a time when so many are jobless,  when cities and towns are facing drastic budget cuts, one would hope that both parties could come together to work on solving the very real problems facing our state. Instead, the minority party is choosing to grandstand on hyper-partisan ideological issues.  Yep, it's an election year.  

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's an Election Year | 21 comments
Good post. (0.00 / 0)
And it reminds me why these are called wedge issues.  Because talking about these issues divide our society and divert our attention from issues that should unite us.  Like feeding our families, the right to a stable employment market, and access to health care, to name just a few.

Instead, people, many of whom have been married multiple times, tell us that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Then there are politicians, some of whom solicit same-gender sex in airport bathrooms, who tell us that GLBT people are unfit to serve in our military.  We talk about the right to bear arms in the most deadly developed society in the world, and the war on Christmas is over saying "Happy Holidays" instead of focusing on the outrageous usury fees charged to people who use credit cards to buy Christmas presents.  Blecchh.

My only mild objection to your post is that these are not just election year tactics.  The War on Working Class requires that these wedge issues permanently skew the electoral debate.  False, cultural populism has subsumed social justice issues, marginalizing people-powered movements and polarizing our national dialectic.

The age-old adage of "follow the money" is truer today than ever before.  Wages for the working class have stagnated, even declined over the past 40 years while profits and shareholder value are higher than ever.  

These are not election year tactics, but a long-term strategy to co-opt power and use it to the benefit of the elite on a permanent basis.

The only thing which consoles us from our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries.  Pascal

 


you have the right to remain silent (0.00 / 0)
I could not find "the right to a stable employment market" in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It is essentially a choice to stay where you are/were born, move down or up. The right to the opportunity we have to better ourselves through education and employment is something that still brings people like a magnet to these shores.


for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

[ Parent ]
You've gotta fight, for your right (0.00 / 0)
Our gov't is there to thwart structural impediments to our individual successes. That is not a handout.

Our Declaration states that "All men are created equal." In some respects, that is patently false. My physical stature does not equal Tom Brady's. Maybe I could train harder? My mental stature does not equal that of Dr. Steven Chu. Though I could study my ass off. Should I chose to challenge these two superiors, there should be nothing in the way, but my own limitations. In America, that is promised with our birth.

Where we are equal is in opportunity. None here are born noble. The Founders rejected a blood line caste system. So, any manifestation of a caste system must be undermined, if not outright destroyed.

Gov't should be the great equalizer. Better Uncle Sam, than Uncle Sam Colt.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
We are at a cross roads (0.00 / 0)
I admire your idealism, Jack, and it probably works for you, but there are millions being left behind.  Gov't should be the equalizer, but we are failing in the face of onslaught: Kids can't get college loans, the retraining budget for displaced workers has been reduced from $18B in 1980 to $5B, 50 million Americans have no health care insurance, 45,000 die each year because they have no insurance, wages are stagnant, industry is shedding jobs, cutting wages and benefits even when the company is profitable to improve shareholder value.

Walmart locks employees in the stores at night, violates child labor laws and our gov't cuts a deal with them to phone them before making the next investigation.  Our government, broadly speaking, is not working for the common man.  

I'm not asking for handouts as you mention - although I'd point out that the irony of using this phrase on a progressive site is a little chilling - I'm asking for a public policy debate that centers on real issues for real people, not phony cultural values issues that improve the lives of absolutely zero people.  

The other side is not taking time off and we need to work harder, for sure.  But there's no dishonor in pointing out the inequities in the system - in fact, it's a requirement if you want to develop countervailing (if that's even possible) strategies.


[ Parent ]
Take the time to be in charge. (4.00 / 1)
This is my new FB status.

See you at the Hodes organizational meeting.
Or at the one for Ann McLane Kuster.

I'm not important. I just showed up and pitched in. If anything about me is important, it is that I haven't quit. (h/t Kathy Sullivan)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?


[ Parent ]
IX Amendment to the Constitution (0.00 / 0)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  You must have missed that.

You're entitled to believe what you want, but public policy has created a market system that rewards for pursuit of profit, not happiness.  Education and hard work are no longer protections against freedom from want or fear.  My underlying point was that rather than having great national debates around social justice issues, we are purposely distracted by wedge issues.  

American workers have been forced to compete with the poorest of the poor, almost overnight.  We're no longer talking about low-wage jobs anymore, either...radiologists, accountants, teachers, architects, engineers - all being outsourced to cheap labor markets in pursuit of profit.  

The whole "land of opportunity" meme is bit sticky - one person's opportunity is another's flight of fancy.


[ Parent ]
As I said, the Constitution is addressed to how our (4.00 / 1)
agents are to behave.  The agents of government are  to treat all persons AS IF THEY WERE EQUAL.  There is no obligation to make people equal or equalize their differences.
Think of MacDonald's selling hamburgers that are all equal or even equally modified for different tastes.  MacDonald's does not fit its product to the perceived characteristics of its customers, regardless of whether the staff might think that the customer is already too fat and doesn't need more to eat.
The options of the provider are restricted; not the options of the recipient.  That's why it's called "limited government."
The purpose of government is to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  To the extent that persons are deprived of the sustenance necessary to life and personal security, our agents of government fail. To the extent that benefits are conditioned on subservience, our agents of government fail.  We are entitled to social support; it is not something that has to be earned or deserved.  On the other hand, anti-social behavior is properly met by withdrawing the benefits.
It's hard to withdraw benefits that are not already enjoyed.    

[ Parent ]
I have no idea (0.00 / 0)
what any of this means.

Good grief.  Regardless of the ideal role for government, public policy, whether enacted by the legislature, promulgated by agency, or dictated by judicial fiat affects people.  For example, Taft-Hartley created an unfair advantage for industry by allowing states to adopt Right to Work (for less) legislation that works to sever union from resources.

Another example, free trade agreements are wholly slanted in favor of capital and products/services at the complete expense of labor in developed countries.  No more BS about FTA's creating great new industries for American workers - the jobs being lost now are across broad sectors of the economy.

I could go on all night.  Sheesh.  I was agreeing with the original post - we need a national debate that focuses on economic justice and sound public policy that supports a thriving middle class.  Holy Crap.  


[ Parent ]
Thank you (4.00 / 1)
j cicirelli. I appreciate someone actually reading and responding to what I wrote. One of the most difficult aspects of writing op-eds is wondering what the hell ltte writers read, because they certainly didn't read the same thing I wrote.  

The idea that all men are created equal sounds quite noble, but the reality is that we sure as hell aren't born equal, or given equal opportunities. There most certainly are advantages to bloodlines (can you say Kennedy...I knew you could) and there is most certainly a caste system.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty


[ Parent ]
caste system? legacy office holders? in nh? (4.00 / 4)
lets see: bass sr and jr; gregg sr and jr; stephens sr and jr; sununu sr and jr and jr and jr etc. These people seriously need new dna.

I have a general rule that I never will vote for someone running for an office that their daddy (and i will soon have to amend to mommy also) held.

They all need to try working for a living every other generation.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


[ Parent ]
You're right. But let me just suggest that (4.00 / 1)
money has proved a great veil behind which to hide deprivation and discrimination.  Money appears to be an objective measure of accomplishment, until you consider all the stratagems that have been developed and employed to deprive some populations of access to money, much less the ability to accumulate any.
Consider, for example, the transition from paper food stamps (which could be saved and traded and got real change back when the value of a purchase was less than the value of a stamp) to debit cards which obviate the use of real dollars and cents.  
Direct deposit of Social Security checks does the same--keeps people from seeing the cash.  True, if they have a checking account, they can write a check for which the bank collects a fee and, if they mess up the accounts, fees for over-drafts.
The money-changers have always looked for their cut of any transaction.  That's how they get rich without doing anything.  
But, it's our money--our good faith and credit give it value--and we need to take it back.

[ Parent ]
great post-- heres a footnote about popular votes. (4.00 / 3)

While you are entirely correct that the ban on Catholics holding office in NH was effectively removed in 1877, the actual bigoted language (which was contained in several provisions) remained in the constitution until the early 1950's. Why?

Because every ten years after the provisions stopped being enforced in 1877 (because of the passage of the 14th Amendment), a state constitutional convention recommended to the people that they eliminate the bigoted language. And in every election between 1877 and the early 1950's, the people voted to retain it.

That is why we have  constitutional rights and courts to enforce rights.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


to the best of my knowlege (0.00 / 0)
Only white anglo saxon males served in the NH House until 1905.

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

[ Parent ]
No white males of French descent? n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
no nothin' n/t (0.00 / 0)


for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

[ Parent ]
Actually, they're not Constitutional rights, except for those (4.00 / 1)
that apply to citizens participating in governing by voting, holding office, serving on juries, etc.  Moreover, the Constitution only applies to the behavior of agents of government. Individuals are free to shun anyone they want.  Commercial enterprises is in a different class because their activities are subject to and benefit from government regulation.

[ Parent ]
consequences of Marriage Equality (4.00 / 7)
Photobucket

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

I Love This Chart... (4.00 / 2)
...first saw it a few months ago.  It hasn't changed a bit.  

[ Parent ]
After listening to the crap (0.00 / 0)
...and I mean that literally*, spouted by opponents of marriage equality yesterday in the NH House Judiciary Committee, it restores my soul to come here and look at that beautiful pie chart.

*Honest.  The word "excrement " was used.

When the dust settled, NH House Judiciary voted 10-8 against the gay marriage repeal, and 10-8 against the one man, one woman constitutional amendment.  I am so honored to stand with the other members of that majority.


[ Parent ]
Correction: 12-8 and 12-8 n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the correction (0.00 / 0)
Sorry for the inaccuracy--it was a long week, and I should have looked the numbers up again before posting.

[ Parent ]
It's an Election Year | 21 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox