blogsNH - Politics - Comments

Bingo

Brian Drummond — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:48:55 -0500

As always, I enjoy your point of view and how you express yourself.

It's remarkable how the man is being compared to FDR and Lincoln. Some are trying to create a national holiday bearing his name. And he has not served one day as our leader.

I pray. I rant. I bite my tongue.

I just hope it is not a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

I find myself praying a lot these days.

Jehardy — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:55:45 -0500

Great points as always, Terri. I admire your wise insight.

I've heard it all in the last few days. The clincher was "I'm so happy, now I'll be able to keep a roof over my head!" OK.... How do you figure that?

Yes, The One will supply you with housing. I am greatly relieved by this.

My worst fear is the feeling that Darwin was wrong.

Judy

here is a way to cut taxes

jsa603 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:42:13 -0400

In 1973, the State on New Hampshire enacted the Current Use Program. It was enacted as an open space conservation measure. It is a taxing strategy aimed at making it easier for landowners to keep their open space undeveloped. Instead of being taxed at its real estate market value, land is taxed on its income producing capability. In other words, land is taxed as a wood lot or farm, not as a potential site for a house. Today nearly 3 million acres (almost 60% of the State's taxable private land) are enrolled in the program. Meaning 2% of the population owns 60% of the State's land. What does that mean for the small land, lot owner?
Lets think forward. Sixty percent of the land in the State is privately owned. Then take out 750,000 acres in National Forest. And 71, 500 or there abouts in state parks. Plus , lakes, ponds and streams must be subtracted from the State's nearly 6,000,000 acre mass. That will leave you with a VERY small percentage of land that is paying most of the taxes for the whole state. So are your taxes high? Let's look at what the Current Use Program decided in April 18th, 2008: No rate increase to the program. Now when did your taxes not increase?
What are the advantages of enrollment? Decreased taxes 35.6% participants reported. Disadvantage none that I can see. When you want to remove your land from Current Use you pay 10% of full true value of the land. Now lets see, if you owned a piece of land for 10 years how much could you save?
Now let's see if I can give some ideas how to fix this.

1) From a report from Pan Atlantic SMS Group for the State of NH, If Land Use Tax were to increase from 10% to 20% , more than three-quarters of respondents reported that they would not sell any of their land. OK that is one quick way to raise money to help pay for running the state.

2) Now here is another idea. How about giving the farmers the highest tax cut based on income produced. Then a second level in a lesser amount for forestry, again based on income produced. Then the third rate being a bit less than normal for the open lands that are not producing anything. This would keep land open for farmers and timber operations giving them the tax break that they need to survive.
3) Maybe the NH should think about upping the land minimum to 50 acres.
Either way if your taxes are too high remember those not in current use are paying the bulk of the property tax revenues for the state.

Not alone, and in good company

The School Bus Driver — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:59:20 -0400

"Am I the only one who thinks November the forth should be the date for a new Tea Party?"

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Thomas Jefferson

I wonder if we can ever restore the republic to the principles upon which it was founded.

sine cera

Kevin

Amazingly so, Scott, we are

Michael Evans — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:09:33 -0400

Amazingly so, Scott, we are very close to being on the same page. Your further explanations here bring us that much closer. I agree with the idea that abortion should be rare and I agree with the idea that children should not be having sex; however, I'm realistic enough to know that children do have sex and that its best to be informed. Denial is an awful state of being. I am in my 60s, and I have never known a person who has had a "partial birt" abortion. Do you? If statistics are right, these are very rare, and performed when the life of the mother is at risk. I think the right wingers have used this to drum up their base.

Perhaps we need a new constitutional convention to rewrite the rules for the next 200 years and update the document to reflect the different world in which we live. Some of us think that some in Washington have pretty much torn up the Constitution during the last eight years.

I'm glad your definition includes not just a Christian God, but when those words were added in the 1950s, the understanding of most was it was the Christian God. America is NOT a Christian Nation, though many would like to rewrite history to make it so.

The rule of law has been aborted by the present administration. I'm hoping that the next administration will return the nation to the rule of law. No more "signing statements" and executive orders that destroy the balance of power and the check and balances that were established in the original document.

A place to start...

Scott Ives — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:04:18 -0400

The first amendment to the constitution gives me the god given right to enunciate my political beliefs. I put forward the principles that I believe are important to the well being of our nation. I don't believe I hold the universal truths to a set of national values, however, I believe I am entitled to articulate the ones that I think are the keys to remaining one country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

5. We agree on one thing for sure any employer that illegally entices and subsequently employs illegal immigrants should pay a very steep fine and be financially responsible for the people that they harm by their actions. I want America to be a country that continues to inspire hope across the world, but if we do not enforce our laws and borders soon neither will mean anything. I think we have room to talk about this one!

6. We agree that no one sanctions abortion. I believe the way to make abortions rare is to continue to discuss a value system that encourages adults to be responsible people and make intelligent decisions about sex. It is important that we do not give in to a popular culture that gives tacit approval to children having sex. Government should not countenance partial birth abortion or the withholding of life- saving-medical treatment to babies that survive the abortive process. I don't believe that laws alone can change a persons heart and that is why I believe that the only way to stop abortion is to change public opinion Surely we can come together to stop the two aforementioned problems.

8. On this we will have to agree to disagree. If the constitution has no constant and eternal meaning there would have been no reason to create a method of amending it. It means what it means if you don't care for it change it, otherwise it could be reinterpreted daily, then where would we be? A constitution that has no meaning at all.

10. I too want a separation between the state and church. I would not like to worship according to the dictates of the state of New Hampshire or by the laws promulgated by the federal government. Where we most likely disagree, however, is the idea that you can't display a belief in the public square. I love our country's ability to worship God freely and without restrictions. Whether he or she is called Allah, Adone, Lord, Jehovah, YHWH, Buddha, or a Hindu version of the same it matters not to me. Each of these faiths teaches people to treat people one another the way we all would like to be treated. I also am comfortable with those who do not believe as long as they believe in the same virtues as those espoused in the worlds faiths. Religion does not cause strife in the world it is the poor students that twist it's simple message for their own evil purposes. Do we see some things the same?

I have some problems with

Michael Evans — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:20:27 -0400

I have some problems with parts of #s 5-6-8-10.

5. Though things have changed in the last few months, I don't fault those who have come here with the promise of work and a better life recruited by US employers who would provide them that encouragement. If there hadn't been the promise of jobs, they wouldn't have been coming.

6. I agree that life is precious, however, but I don't believe that the state has the right to tell women what they may or may not do with their bodies. No one I know is pro-abortion, but abortion is a part of life and has always been and will always be. To make it illegal, forcing poor women into dark alleys and rich women to go overseas, is wrong. Privacy is precious as well. The best way to prevent abortion is to educate our youth and teach them how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

8. I do not believe in a strict constructionist view of the constitution. It was written over 200 years ago with foresight, but it was a covenant between the landowners and those they would select to govern them. We live in a very different world, and we must adjust to the 21st century.

10. Keep god in your church and out of the public square. The separation of church and state is one of the most important restriction of the Constitution and needs to be respected even in this day. Our founders understood that religion and state do not mix, as we've seen in recent days.

You didn't explain why YOU get to set the principles, though. Why is that?

Which ones trouble you?

Scott Ives — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:03:51 -0400

Please let me know your points of disagreement. Perhaps with conversation we are closer than you think.

Scott

I agree with some of your

Michael Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:02:09 -0400

Scott, I agree with most of your principles but not all of them. So I guess we'd have difficulty compromising on issues. Why do you get to set the principles instead of me anyway?

Great Blog

Michael Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:47:54 -0400

Bill, This is the most reasonable thing I've read of yours. I agree with all you've said here. Thank you for a well thought out post.

Mike

Compromise on details not principles...

Scott Ives — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:02:23 -0400

I agree that the dialogue in our country is out of control. I would simply say that compromise that merely reduces the noise level is not what America craves. We want leaders who say what they mean and then follow through on their promises. The elites and powerful in this country have counseled leaders from both parties to say and do things to influence large voting blocs, things they know they will not be able to do.

If your child tells you that he will get straight A's on his report card when he is currently performing C work, he is lying. If you are a parent that is working hard to teach your child the value of honesty you will call that behavior to task. In America this same type of behavior is tolerated in every election cycle. Well meaning citizens of both party's not only tolerate this aberrant behavior we reward it by giving them our vote again and again.

This election in particular is a good example of our system at its worst. Democrats are not running on issues that are well articulated and present real change. Their best issue is we're not George Bush! If this isn't what they stand for then they are wasting millions of dollars advertising just that!I

If you could find a McGovern for President brochure the only change you would need to make is a name substitution. Issue for Issue Obama is George McGovern. A vast improvement in marketing and packaging but in substance...same old same old.

Real change in America would be a return to relying on our own people's ingenuity, hard work and compassion. We would unleash the amazing natural resources available in our homeland and simultaneously begin the hard work of finding the technology that would set the stage for the next great leap in a reinvigorated America.

The real question is do we as a people still believe these basic foundational ideas...

1) America is a land of opportunity for all!

2) We are a good, generous and decent people.

3) Our best days are in front of us!

4) English is our common language it binds us together and allows us to freely communicate our ideas and differences.

5) Our borders are sacrosanct...come here legally we welcome you with open arms, come here in violation of our laws and we will enforce those laws vigorously!

5) We make no apologies for our country or its people, our best, brightest and most courageous people have fought in defense of liberty all over the world and once the peace is won, we only ask for a peaceful place for them to finally rest.

6) Life is precious...not a choice!

7) We the people still means they work for us!

8) The constitution is the law of the land! It is a document that has words that mean something...not a living document, but a covenant between the governed and the government spelling out what we give them authority to do in our name.

9) We need to leave our country better than it was when it was left to us!

10) One nation under god, with liberty and justice and tolerance for all.

These principles cannot be compromised, but I'm willing, yea, even eager to lay everything else on the table to guaranty the survival of the "shining city on the hill." Our differences will never divide us irreconcilably if "we hold these truths to be self evident!"

Energy and Farm

timss13 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:52:30 -0400

Energy- I agree with additional exploration although I don't think it is necessary and is even too expensive to drill in places like ANWAR. Perhaps I am wrong but I am willing to consider all options. I also agree with increasing capacity of natural gas ala Pickens plan. Not sure what is the right tax or way to fund private investment in energy technologies but that was where a significant amount of private equity was going anyway prior to the last month's economic fun. Perhaps the gov is not needed to do anything other than provide tax credits for companies creating energy tech jobs?

Farm Policy- went ridiculous back in early 70s. Now it does not pay a farmer to grow healthy food, just subsidized crops like wheat, soy, etc. So, yes, get rid of subsidies and move us back to more of a regional food chain. It is healthier for the consumer, reduces the amount of fuel being used and supports the local economy.

I also believe that the fed gov't has overstepped its bounds by controlling too much of what a state can do. Ex. separation of church and state is meant to be held at the Federal level. If a state decides by vote that it wants to be a catholic state, quaker state, or zoroastrian state, then it should be allowed to as long as it is not discriminating against other beliefs. Just an example of what is wrong with the current balance.

Imagine That!

Bill Bunker — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:15:08 -0400

We agree on something. Now imagine if about 200,000,000 people did the same.

Here are my positions on the other two points, Energy and Farm Policy:

ENERGY-Exploit all of our natural resources to provide the energy that we need from oil to natural gas to clean coal. I am not a nuclear fan but sources in the industry tell me that compared to Seabrook, the technology has come really far and is much safer.

Now, tax gasoline 10 cents per gallon and put that revenue into an account to invest in new energy technologies. It should not be spent on anything else.

Next, enforce emissions standards and give auto companies tax breaks to convert their entire manufacturing lines over to hybrids.

Make emissions standards more stringent on cars.

DO NOT.......I repeat....DO NOT......stop oil exploration and oil development until we have an alternative fuel that can replace it. Drill everywhere but force the oil companies to post a bond and insurance that would cover any catastrophe.

Next, that 10 cents per gallon tax funds hundreds of entrepreneurs who present a plan to develop new energy sources.

Solar is too expensive, wind is not reliable and bio fuels put as much if not more CO2 in to the atmosphere.

FARM POLICY- Plain and simple, no subsidies. Instead, let's feed more people with our crops, right here at home. Let's develop markets overseas and export everything we can to foreign countries.

Too much emphasis is placed on the price of crops. Let's encourage farmers and farm industries to produce volume and make their money that way. We subsidize farmers to not grow or destroy their crops. That is ridiculous, let the farmers compete in the free market.

Oh yeah, how about a hybrid tractor as well?

Good Argument and Points Bill

timss13 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:18:48 -0400

Perhaps you and I agree on more than we would have thought based on our previous posts.

Stem Cell Research- I agree completely with your points

Abortion- again, total agreement. I am Pro-life personally but believe in a woman's right to choose.

Education- it will never be what it needs to be for our children if the unions continue to dictate as strongly as they have. They serve a purpose but they should not wield more power than the taxpayers. Question- what is your reasoning behind no mainstreaming and elimination of gifted classes? Do you propose something different?

Also, charter schools can be an effective way of increasing quality of education- not only for those students attending but also for those students who go to traditional public schools since they increase competition.

Immigration- again I agree with most of your points although a wall, to the best of my knowledge, has not been as much of a deterrent as we would hope it would be. I think you have to go after employers who hire them, especially when they know there is no documentation or false documentation.

It is clear that both parties have leaders that share a lot of anger and even hatred towards the other party. That is one reason why I will not join either of them.

Two issues that I would like to see some serious compromise and movement on are energy and farm policy. Both are incredibly backwards and detrimental to America if they are not altered radically in the immediate future.

Good points!

Justin Drake — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:08:12 -0400

Hi Bill,

Good post! I also scratch my head listening to the extreme right and extreme left bicker about how to get things done, and not giving an inch. I think more or less you've come up with some good compromise solutions that really are in the mainstream of what Americans are thinking. While I may disagree with a point here or there, I think you're definitely pointing to the right direction.

Hopefully, whoever is elected on November 4 will try to work from the center a bit more over the next four years. It's mystifying watching the utter gridlock in Washington, and how common sense solutions are put out to pasture if the extreme wings of either party don't agree with the legislation. We need to get more moderate voices in government, but sadly it looks like many of them have been voted out over the years.

~Justin