NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce
NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)
ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
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
This really needs to be forwarded to every Republican and undeclared Granite Stater you know - from a resident of Wasilla and acquaintance of the Palins:
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
How to cut the city budget even further than Guinta's draconian school and service slashing measures?
Just stop paying taxes:
Mayor Frank Guinta yesterday paid more than $3,000 in past due 2007 real estate taxes and nearly $300 in an outstanding 2006 wastewater bill on property he owns on Youville Street.
The mayor said he was unaware of a real estate tax lien and a wastewater lien filed against his three-family residential investment property by the city tax collector's office until informed by the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Now, normally I would have some sympathy for this sort of thing. I mean, Guinta's Republican party under Bush has destroyed our economy, and people are suffering everywhere. As John Edwards' notes, we are a nation of people who put their bills into two piles - pay now and pay later.
But this is an investment property and bills so dated we are in certified letter and lien territory here. Not exactly the situation many of us find ourselves in, pinching pennies and hoping we can save enough each week for the tax bill on our primary residence.
Part of me wonders whether the Mayor had any intention of paying it had it not been discovered by the press.
In response to the full-page ads placed by Freedom Works in support of the Fairpoint/Verizon merger.
Organizations such as Freedom Works (www.freedomworks.org) hide behind the facade of representing the taxpayer, while they lobby for companies such as Verizon and Fairpoint, that are some of the biggest abusers of our tax money.
These ads show that Freedom Works has chosen to act as lobbyist for Verizon and Fairpoint,
because of donations made to their organization made by these 2 companies.Instead of supporting the people that truly need their assistance.
The records in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont (as stated by the PUC'S) show that Verizon has continually taken tax money and tax incentives that were intended for a secure and up to date communications system and have used this money in other areas that Verizon deems as more profitable.
Leaving the consumers and taxpayers of these 3 States with an antiquated and inferior telecommunications system, lacking in the technologies needed to compete with other regions of this country.
As for Fairpoint, a considerable amount of their operating revenues come from taxpayer and consumer supported programs such as the Universal Service Fund.
In the proposals made by Fairpoint to these 3 states, they are requesting to keep their current businesses separate from this transaction so they may continue receiving funding from the USF and not be required to pay into this fund, but in the same time they propose to use the revenues of these businesses to support its claims of financial stability.
What does Fairpoint chose to do with these revenues? They continue to payout dividends to their shareholders in excess of their revenues, instead of investing money back into their infrastructure in which it was intended, to the point that they have actually had to borrow money to make these dividend payments.
Their recent ads placed in several New Hampshire newspapers are not only misleading, but they border on fraud!
Quote from this ad,
"*Maine regulators approved the transaction
*Vermont regulators recently announced an agreement on the transaction
*The federal Communications Commission approved it as well"
1. Maine regulators have not approved this transaction in its entirety, in fact the Maine OPA has recently petitioned to reopen this case due to concern of Fairpoints financial viability.
2.The Vermont Public Service Department has agreed to certain terms of this sale, Not the Vermont Public Service Board!!! Which is the only entity that has the authority to approve this transaction in Vermont.
I see by statements made on their website that their organization fights against the wasteful use of our tax money.
From Their Website,
The Issue
Waste, fraud, and abuse are rampant in the federal budgets from year to year. Rather than return the surplus tax dollars to taxpayers, the monies continue to be left in Washington to pay for bloated federal government programs.
The Freedom Works Position
Government is too big and spends too much of our money. A strong and vibrant free market economy - free from burdensome taxation and regulation - offers the best hope for creating opportunity and improving the quality of life for every American.
Verizon and Fairpoint by there own business structures and the acceptance of taxpayer money have chosen to be regulated companies.
The fact that they chose to support companies such as Verizon and Fairpoint is a considerable contradiction to what they are fighting for.
In my opinion their support of these companies is based only on the amount of money Verizon and Fairpoint has contributed to their organization, and not factual information.
By allowing this sale to go thru, Verizon not only gets to walk away from their obligations to the taxpayers, but by choosing Fairpoint as the buyer they get a 600 million dollar present in the way of the Reverse Morris (Our tax money gone with nothing to show for it).
The Reverse Morris is the only reason Fairpoint has been "chosen by Verizon".
There were other companies (companies that have the financial stability and infrastructure to truly meet the needs of the 3 States) that were interested in these lines, but by selling these lines to these companies Verizon would not have qualified for this tax incentive
Companies such as Verizon are being allowed to come in and steal our tax dollars thru the allotment of government subsidies, and not being held to their agreements to supply the services that were promised.
Verizon chooses to take this money and spend it in places that they deem as more profitable.
By allowing this sale to go thru Verizon not only gets to walk away from their obligations to the taxpayers, but by choosing Fairpoint as the buyer they get a 600 million dollar present in the way of the Reverse Morris (more of our tax money gone with nothing to show for it).
The Reverse Morris is the only reason Fairpoint was "choosen by Verizon".
There were other companies(companies that have the financial stability and infastructure to truly meet the needs of the 3 States) that were interested in these lines, but by selling these lines to these companies Verizon would not have qualified for this tax incentive.
Now as far as Fairpoint goes, even the Maine PUC stated after thier approval. that it is a subtantial risk to allow this merger to go forward.
What happens if Fairpoint cannot deliver on the promises that they have made? The 3 State PUC's fine them. None of them show a very good track record of ever collecting these fines.
So who pays for this in the end? The taxpayer!
Fairpoint proposes to keep thier current lines and businesses in these states seperate from this merger. Why? Because they will lose subsidies that they are paid thru the USF fund(more taxpayer money).
What does Fairpoint choose to do with this money? Instead of using this money to invest in infastructure, They payout dividends to their shareholders with this money!
Who pays for this? Once again its the taxpayer!
The Maine OCA recently petitioned the Maine PUC to re-open this case due to agreements made with Vermont that will change Fairpoints financial viability substantially.
http://mpuc.informe.org/easyfi...
I would suggest to the New Hampshire,Vermont and Maine Commissions to protect the rights of the people of these 3 States, and make Verizon live up to their agreements and spend our hard earned tax dollars in these States, and to supply the type of telecommunications system we deserve and have paid for.
"Investigative reporter David Cay Johnston explores in his new book how in recent years, government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected."
"Fresh Air" interview with David Cay Johnston on National Public Radio.
Senator Obama's New Hampshire campaign will begin airing its fifth television ad tomorrow. In the thirty-second spot, entitled "Need," Obama describes American workers as the "bedrock" of our economy and offers his plan to reverse the widening gap between the middle class and the wealthy.
The Secretary of Transportation recommended, and Governor Lynch endorsed, a hike in highway tolls to pay for an underfunded highway program.
In New Hampshire any such move needs to be approved by the Executive Council. Yesterday they did, by a 4-1 margin.
NH GOP Chief Fergus Cullen immediately attacked the increase as a Democratic tax hike.
Here's the thing, Nanny: the two Republicans on the Executive Council both voted for the hike. The Dems split 2 for, 1 against.
So the GOP could have stopped it, but the people in the GOP who hold offices that require support from the voters themselves - unlike, say, Party chairmanships - sided with Governor Lynch.
Let's be fair: as Chairman of the Roadblock Republicans, Cullen has no idea of how to actually accomplish anything. He is a devotee of the Grover Norquist school of "drown the government in the bathtub," even when the drowning from failed governmental services and programs is literal - as in New Orleans and Minneapolis.
Lynch and the Executive Council instead chose to come up with the money to fix our roads and bridges.
A tip of the hat to all our Executive Councilors of both parties for their commitment to making government work.
A nod of sympathy to the two Republicans on the Council who were just attacked by their party Chairman.
The gas tax, currently 18 cents a gallon, and unchanged since the early 90's, is supposed to fund the highway and transportation departments. Over the years, the legislature has siphoned off funds for other departments, and now Gov. Lynch is refusing to increase the gas tax and our transportation infrastructure is falling way behind on upkeep and new projects.
Are all taxes the "third rail" of New Hampshire politics?
Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with "incendiary rhetoric," and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically.
Richardson's week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida. Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked:
Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?
Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, "For other Democratic candidates, we've not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment."
For a full review of Richardson's week, continue reading.
Several years ago, I was the Safety Manager for a construction company that worked on several exciting and dangerous projects. One of the generally acepted axioms of a good safety program among professional safety folks is that the Company must have a safety budget or it's not really committed to having a safe project.
My company did not have such a budget. At a national conference, the company owner and I were having beers with some colleagues. When they found out we didn't have a budget, we were challenged on missing so basic an element of our program.
My boss just grinned and said, "If we spend all the budget and some of the guys need safety harnesses to work on a bridge 200 feet above the San Francisco Bay [reality], are we going to tell them they have to work without them? Of course not. We spend what we need to make sure no one gets hurt." Which we did. No serious injuries in 7 years.
Most of the articles and letters and speeches concerning school funding keep talking about budgeting schools and cutting costs and eliminating this and that. The reality is that "education" is an abstract that you don't quite know if you've got, but you certainly know if you haven't.
It seems to me, you have to spend whatever it takes to educate every student to the maximum of their ability. Anything less does them and us a disservice.
And it is up to us to find that money. Not to limit who and how much we educate.
During last fall's campaigns, some legislators say they heard a common refrain from older voters: Cut our taxes.
As a result, about a dozen lawmakers have submitted proposals to shrink the taxes seniors pay on their property, their vacation homes and their investments.
Most of the bills would give towns leeway to include wealthier seniors in property tax relief programs, but some plans would have more sweeping effects, exempting elderly residents from education taxes or capping tax bills once a homeowner turns 65.
One in ten kids in poverty, an economy entering a slowdown, and a generational time bomb less than a decade away. We're 49th in the State/Local tax burden, and in the past 35 years the only year taxes were as low as in 2006 was 1985.
I'm fully aware that working-age people hit with increases have some opportunity to restructure their employment to meet those challenges, and that some special consideration has to be given to seniors, who do not have that option.
But to give an unbalanced tax cut to seniors at precisely the time when we are approaching the generational doughnut hole is reckless beyond words.
Taxes need to be more equitable, and they need to be restructured. But tax cuts? Come on, guys. Read a newspaper once in a while. You're embarrassing all of us.
Blue Hampshire RSS