When Liberals Think Out Loud (Thanks)

I refer to an August 6 column by the editor of the Concord paper you can find on their web site entitled: “State Gets Older But Not Wiser.”

This article is about a young family man (the same guy) with children to educate in the public schools and how he had to leave Fla. 30 years ago for NH in order to get a quality result for his kids. He left the failing Fla. schools and his neighbors behind for greener pastures – Concord NH, a pro-education community as he describes it.

Well isn't this what the whole story is about anyway?

It seems some Exeter demographer has the ear of the Concord paper's staff and now all of a sudden the aging of NH is a big deal – only because it looks like education spending may take a hit at town and school meetings from these new senior voters, according to this rather one-sided theory. (Better late than never if its true.).

I look at it somewhat differently.

While the editor of the Concord paper writes openly about his meeting with the demographer, who reveals to us that he can tell when a school bond will pass in any given community by the demographics. (You can even buy software for this task.)

Thanks to this column we can get a look at what has been going on for some time in towns all over our state since about 1999. That was when our taxpayer organizations first noticed the trend of pushing $19-$20 million dollar school construction bonds in town after town, needed or not.

You see, when a school board and its demographic experts thinks they have the votes to build they shoot for what bond amount their figures say is the most the community can “afford” without voters rejecting the bond. In effect, they just pick a number, not what building project would fit the need while at the same time be affordable for, lets say, older fixed-income taxpayers. They lay down the financial gauntlet to older homeowners to either pay up or get out. More young families move in for the new school and shazam! you and yours run the place.

So in 1999-2000 as the state demographics finally began to show less children entering public schools, school spenders started building as fast as possible. It was common knowledge at the time, as the theory went, that a then proposed income tax would cover the costs. Ah but the 2001 attempt failed in the House by ten votes (CNHT says “you're welcome” by the way).

The editor of the Concord paper also seems disturbed not only by the aging of our NH population, which he sees as anti-education, but at the loss of our young people because of a lack of “affordable housing.” And he gets this wrong as well.

First: Older and wiser taxpayers resent paying for schools that do not cut the mustard educationally. They are not like the easy-sell parents of school age kids who want it all and want it now. (Sound like the guy who left Fla. 30 years ago?)

Second: Houses are not that expensive – land is. And build-able land is becoming more and more scarce every year due to conservation easements and outright purchases with tax dollars. I can buy a truckload of 2×4s any time I want but if I have no land how can I build a home with it.

Third: In the school year 2000-01 we had 205,299 children enrolled in NH public schools. As of 2005-06 we have 205,767. In short, we have built schools for kids who are not coming during the life of these new schools and voters are catching on. The glory years of young parents controlling school and town meetings are coming to a close.

Funny, the demographer mentioned in the commentary is from Exeter where fixed income taxpayers with the help of CNHT members figured this out long ago and passed elderly exemption measures to shift the tax burden back on younger voters.

Maybe the editor of the Concord paper should pack up and look for greener pastures again. This is a trend that is not about to stop.

Judge Lynn: Do The Right Thing!

And now for the latest Jerry Springer moment involving a New Hampshire cathouse – excuse me — courthouse. (Same difference.)

I will break it down into bluntly described visuals you can commit to memory, hopefully without triggering a gag reflex.

Three Merrimack County Superior Court/Cathouse denizens are trading off-again, on-again Lambada lessons with each other in what seems to be a combined lack of responsible adult companionship.

The players: 34-year old court employee Susan Corcoran, 60ish Judge Edward Fitzgerald, and 50/60ish Concord attorney, Ted Barnes.

The victims: NH Judicial credibility, taxpayers forced to supply the granite-pillared, wood-paneled dating service to these losers, as well as the defendant in this baby-shaking manslaughter case.

The scenario: These idiots were at some point in time “dating each other” during a manslaughter case in which they were all involved. (There must have been come-hither glances just bouncing all over the courtroom.)

The definition of “dating each other,” facts regarding “dating each other,” and time lines regarding “dating each other” may come slowly to light in this torrid little soap opera as there has already, according to news reports, been some definition of the word “is” type answers given to an inquiring Superior Court Chief Justice Robert Lynn who has, as he should, taken an interest in the case.

How sad is it that we have “professionals” in our judicial system playing (two thirds of the threesome anyway) “geriatric spin the bottle” on our time and during a MANSLAUGHTER case.

And then the history lesson.

It was not that long ago, June 2004, we lost an Attorney General to an evening of hip-grabbing conga line dance moves, as well as having a Rockingham District Court/Cathouse Judge suspended after of all things – an excessive bit of cross-gender groping during a conference on sexual harassment. Paid for by your tax dollars.

Then there was that wacky impeachment of the State Supreme Chief Court Justice for trying to place a more “cooperative and understanding” judge into the divorce of a – State Supreme Court Justice. For all the smoke and fury it turned out to be little more than a catch and release program because we had in place a “cooperative and understanding” State Senate many of us believe was the result of non-resident voters influencing several seacoast area senate races. But that is all water under the bridge, right?

Then we have another “judge” who escaped his NH court/cathouse for the American Southwest only to found dead with a plastic bag over his head in some cheap hotel room. This fellow was accustomed to trading short jail time for sexual favors with young men and stealing property from clients. The lack of any discernible effort by NH to stop this judge was what generated much of the political activism of the court-reformers I ran into when I first became active in state politics in the early 90's. It also sat and grew like a festering boil until the State Supreme Court Chief Justice impeachment issue came along.
Pop!

Now, after all this (as well as the arrogance of the Claremont Decision) we find there has been almost no change of attitude in some members of our legal community when it comes to seeking the pleasures of each other's excess flesh.

I could be wrong but here is my take on the situation.

Some of our esteemed judges were not, in their formative years anyway, “a hit with the ladies,” so to speak. In fact, most were probably weenie-boy types who have a great bit of trouble, in their current couch-potato conditions, shielding themselves from the court/cathouse groupies who roam the hallways and offices of our judicial system in full trophy-seeking mode, decked out in all manner of alluring pantsuits.

As a taxpayer activist I have a dilemma.

Do I look for reform from the system itself – the type Judge Lynn could provide in this case? This would stop wasting tax dollars on second trials etc. But then choice two:

Should I sit back and enjoy watching as some of these judges become, in a strange twist of fate, one of the sad-luck, shoulda-known-better, thinkin-with-the small-head losers who are paraded through their courtrooms every day?

I'm taking a poll.

Justice

If I could wave a magic wand that would grant me three wishes to waste on politics (other than hoping Hillary gets the Democrat nomination) I would ask for these three things:

One: I wish the doctor in Cuba who just a few months ago claimed Castro would live to be 160 would be the same guy charged with working on his evil and currently bleeding guts.

Two: I wish the relatives of the woman killed in the Big Dig tunnel would win a $15 billion dollar, I said BILLION dollar settlement against Massachusetts so that Massachusetts would finally have to pay for that mess themselves. Then maybe some reporter will shove a microphone in the face of Kennedy, Kerry, or Barney Frank for answers instead of over-reporting the red herring of firing the current MTA commissioner, what's-his-name.

Three: (Work with me here, it's a magic wand...) I wish that we in NH would sell to North Carolina the “First in the Nation Primary” status for a designated sum of money and one extra NASCAR race to be held here in Loudon. With the extra NASCAR race, we would be bringing in something that actually makes money and isn't crooked!

I'm Afraid # 2 Fits Perfectly

Our friends at Merriam-Webster OnLine say:

Patronize
1 : to act as patron of : provide aid or support for
2 : to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
3 : to be a frequent or regular customer or client of

I could not help but notice the editorial in the Nashua Telegraph about a holdout Hollis farmer named David Orde who posted a very telling sign (in my mind anyway) in the entrance of his farm stand that reads: “Support your local farms or watch houses grow.”

Or watch houses grow? As in trying to prevent more of the yuppie MacMansions which now inhabit much of the extinct Hollis farms?

Or is this about fresh vegetables?

If I were to promote an effort to help farmers in New Hampshire, or anywhere else for that matter, the first thing I would do is release them from the crushing, ruthless, elitist, mind-numbing regulations imposed by the likes of — well for instance — Hollis-type zoning and conservation commission regulations, not to mention the DES, DOT, OSHA, and the rest of the usual suspects.

How about the tax-and-spend ethnic cleansers who stalk the Hollis Town Meeting every year trying to spend and bond the tax rate up so high locals have to move out. That might be a good place to start “helping farmers.” Oh, but Hollis elitists just funded, with tax dollars, a study to find out why people are having to sell their homes as if they don't know how it all came about. (Or do I sense a cheap attempt at stemming some faint pang of guilt? Naaah!)

My take on this:

It isn't about the “veggies,” its about the yuppies in Hollis keeping this farmer in “business” until they can raise enough money to buy up this place with bonded tax dollars and make Hollis into an even more exclusive burg than it is now. These are trust fund, portfolio voters at the helm for Pete's sake.

They say small farming isn't really a business but a lifestyle. In this case I believe it is more of a means to a political end.

A Little Clarification is Due

I know we are all ga-ga at the doings of our governor (the press and questionable polls anyway) and his endless photo-ops at changing weather patterns and all, but the credit for getting Massachusetts to pay up for a past agreement to reimburse New Hampshire for land lost to flood control projects designed to protect property south of our border should be directed where it belongs – with State Representative Stretch Kennedy.

Stretch started nudging our taxpayer organization several years ago about Massachusetts's failure to pony up $3.2 million they owed us per the interstate agreement. His thoughts were that if US Senator John Kerry was running for president he may want to grease the NH wheels with paid up back debts due our state but not coming out of his wife's campaign chest.

That did not work out so Stretch asked CNHT to start mentioning to candidate Mitt Romney when we see him that it may be wise to pay up. Smart move, good timing!

Enter the photo-op governor and his threat of a lawsuit on the heels of Stretch's plan. I don't know if this lawsuit deal was in fact a reality or another campaign production but to sue Massachusetts over $3.2 million would probably cost $3.2 million and take forever.

Besides, the possibility that a real live effective Governor like Mitt Romney would be intimidated by a more or less pip-squeaky one like we have is pretty remote – in my humble opinion.

So once again Stretch, thanks for doing the old-fashioned political arm wrestling no matter who tries to take the credit.