Agent Fallon told me, on two separate days/occasions, in a manner that in my opinion was a warning for me not to seek corruption charges against Ex-Chief of Police John Pickering, that 1. The Boston FBI was not going to help me 2. That Pickering was not going to be arrested 3. That I did not have enough money to sue Pickering 4. That I should record any further calls from Pickering (All verbatim). These contacts are in my opinion a sign of corruption. A little more than a year later my son was in a coma in the hospital. I begged the Boston FBI to act and these conversations lead me to contact the USDOJ Inspector General. As I recall, Agent Marci DeFede from the Portsmouth, NH Office spoke to me in 2006/2007 when I called about my allegations and she responded with "you shouldn't expect the FBI to help you since you have contacted the Inspector Generals Office". I feel compelled to bring this information to the public since an American citizen is made the target of rogue officers within the FBI. There is no excuse for these types of statements by officers sworn to protect the citizens of this country. I am willing to take a polygraph test to prove these conversations occured and swear that I am of sound mind. I must stand to protect mine and my sons rights at this point........they can be tried in a Federal court for these types of actions.
Letters to the Editor
What is wrong with twisting the truth? After all we were elected to cut the budget. For some State Representatives it seems this is the reality.
On February 24, Representative Steve Vaillancourt wrote on his blog in the “NH Insider” that a group in Hillsborough County successfully cut the Delegation Coordinator’s salary and hours reducing the county’s $88,000,000 appropriations by .0006 of the overall budget. In the same article, Rep. Vaillancourt stated that similar efforts were made to cut the approximate $100,000 salary and benefits of the Rockingham County Delegation Coordinator but was unsuccessful.
So, Steve, and your unnamed friends, I would like to offer my opinion and a few facts. I only know facts about Rockingham County, so I will speak about what I know and suggest next time you do the same.
The Rockingham County Delegation Coordinator doesn’t make approximately $100,000. The actual salary is $36,800; and pro-rated benefits for a part-time employee. This adds up to a total expense of $55,723 in salary, benefits, and employer obligations.
Secondly, your twist that the Delegation Coordinator is only needed for just over 10 times a year is incorrect. The truth is that the State Representatives who take their role seriously at the county realize that it is their obligation to know, understand, and to approve the county expenditures ($77,931,075 for Rockingham County and over $88,000,000 for Hillsborough County of taxpayer money). They recognize that it is the Delegation Coordinator who keeps them up to date on all aspects of the county. They rely on the Delegation Coordinator to schedule meetings for the executive committee, subcommittees for 15 different major departmental budgets, as well as full delegation meetings, public hearings and meetings to set elected official’s salaries. All bonding for the county requires special public hearings and votes that follow State RSA’s and require proper documentation by the banks and NH DRA. All meetings are set-up and coordinated by, minutes written, reports distributed, and documented by the county coordinator. This is just a small portion of the duties required. Every Representative who comes to these meetings needs to be logged in so they can be paid for mileage and meetings. She is responsible for running all aspects of the office, as well as being available by phone 24/7, 365 days (without complaint). Budgets, hand books and meeting agendas need to printed, posted, mailed and delivered. All of these need to be done within the requirements of the state RSA’s and within the NH Right to Know Laws. Only lawmakers who don’t take their county obligations seriously wouldn’t know how much the delegation coordinator really does for them. In Rockingham County, there are 89 State Representatives who can call on the coordinator to research any county issues and report back, set up a meeting, or follow-up on requests.
Lastly, Steve, cutting the coordinator’s work hours isn’t really a good place to start in cutting the county’s budget. The county coordinator is the eyes and ears for the county delegation. It is understandable that the county commissioners and the county finance officer may not want the State Representatives informed, but why would you and your unnamed friend not want to be informed? It is the job of the coordinator to keep the State Representatives well-versed on county issues. It is also the job of the State Representatives to be attentive to these situations, not just rubberstamp them and let the real costs go unreported or unquestioned. Just one recent example: Maybe the State Representatives should have asked more about the computer software program used to track employee hours. This has added about $100,000 a year to the budget. Was this was implemented without a proper public hearing? Was a multi-year contract signed without proper approvals from Delegation? Is there any real savings, or just more expense? Obviously, more expense than what you’re trying to cut.
In 17 years, the Rockingham County Delegation Coordinator’s salary and work hours have both increased. The salary is up about $18,500 over 17 years and work hours up about 50%. In the same time frame, the commissioner’s pay is up over 350%; the county budget has increased from approximately $44,500,000 to over $77,900,000. There was and still is only one Delegation Coordinator in Rockingham County, while almost every other department has grown in staffing.
In closing, 13 State Representatives, out of the 54 who showed up, voted against the budget In Rockingham County. They offered only two suggestions in budget cuts for a total of .00038 of the overall budget. They attempted to cut the Delegation Coordinator’s salary and the funding requested for the county fire grounds ($4000). Only one of those 13 State Representatives who voted in the minority has come to the county more than twice a year, and gets his information from one commissioner and the finance officer and not the county coordinator. That same State Representative believes that the finance officer who makes over $120,000 in salary and benefits doesn’t make enough money and last year proposed to add$120,000 to her budget. Sounds a lot like the fox is guarding the hen house. Maybe it is time for these State Representatives to take their commitment to the county tax payers a lot more seriously and do the job that they were elected to do. Get involved and get all the facts and information.
Sincerely, Norman R. Hurley
Husband of the Rockingham County Delegation Coordinator
Over the weekend Jazz Shaw asked at Hotair.com, "Is It Time to Ditch the Ex-Im Bank?"
Keep reading! We're talking about another example of government picking winners and losers.
Shaw was responding to an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (appended below) about the quasi-governmental agency that uses taxpayer guarantees to finance purchases by foreign customers of U.S. companies … often to the disadvantage of other U.S. companies.
John Ruberry minces no words when he writes, "Kill the Export-Import Bank."
Ben Howe at RedState.com has also written extensively on the issue. For further background, you may want to read, "Why is the Federal Government Financing Our Foreign Competition?"
I hope you will consider writing on this issue or perhaps sharing the Journal's editorial on your various social media channels.
The Export Subsidy Boomerang
March 2, 2012
The Wall Street Journal
If you thought Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Solyndra would teach Congress a lesson about politicized credit, think again. The federal Export-Import Bank is up for reauthorization, and the only question seems to be how much more taxpayer money Washington wants to put at risk. If the GOP wants to have a principled battle about fiscal waste and market distortions, this is a good one.
The ExIm Bank—founded in 1934 to support trade with the Soviet Union, but never mind—provides taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and other services to U.S. business, especially big exporters. The bank's renewable charter expired on September 30 and Congress has kept it alive through temporary spending bills.
Business lobbies claim the country can't afford to let the bank expire or—gasp—private banks like Citigroup and J.P. Morgan would have to do more trade financing. California Republican Gary Miller, supported by fellow Republican Spencer Bachus, Democrat Barney Frank and others, has a bill pending in the House to prolong the bank's life through 2015 and raise its lending cap to $160 billion from $100 billion. The House Financial Services Committee waved the bill through in a voice vote last year and it's likely to get a floor vote this month.
The issue deserves more public scrutiny, starting with the bank's mission. ExIm says it takes risks that private lenders are "unable or unwilling" to take. But in today's global capital markets, there are very few places (North Korea) where private banks are unable to function, which raises the question of why taxpayers should bear risks that private banks are unwilling to take. At the same time, ExIm also paints itself as a low-risk enterprise. It can't be both.
ExIm's defenders note it has returned money to the Treasury since 2008 and has a less than 2% historical default rate. But ExIm is essentially adopting the same strategy as the Federal Housing Administration: expanding its business, raking in more revenues and proclaiming that it's therefore lower-risk.
ExIm had a record year in 2011, doling out $32.7 billion in loans, guarantees and insurance. That's up from $24.5 billion in 2010 and $12.6 billion in 2007. Meanwhile, loss reserves have declined to $4.1 billion from $5.1 billion in 2010, or to 4.6% from 6.8% of total exposure.
The bigger issue is that the bank by its nature helps some companies at the expense of others. ExIm, for instance, helped its biggest client—Boeing—win airplane contracts in 2011 from Air China, Air India, Cathay Pacific and others. That's great for Boeing, which accounted for 45.6%, or $40.7 billion, of ExIm's total exposure in fiscal 2011.
But this subsidy means that foreign airlines can then buy newer aircraft more cheaply than their U.S. competitors. This gives them an advantage in the global air transportation market. In a letter to Congress last month, Delta estimated that ExIm cost the U.S. airline industry up to 7,500 jobs and $684 million a year.
ExIm Bank supporters play the patriotism card by suggesting that export subsidies help U.S. companies at the expense of foreigners, but in this case it helps foreign companies at the expense of American airlines.
ExIm distorts markets in other industries, too. The bank has an environmental export financing program that has backed the likes of Solyndra, First Solar and Abound Solar. Think about that: The Department of Energy's loan program provided the start-up capital for those companies, and ExIm Bank provided financing for their customers. Solyndra is now bankrupt, Abound Solar has halted production and First Solar is struggling.
ExIm also has initiatives for medical equipment manufacturers, exporters to sub-Saharan Africa and small to medium-sized business. These programs are designed to broaden ExIm's political support in Congress, so the bank doesn't appear to help only the likes of Boeing. But this is another problem with political financing—once someone has it, everyone wants in. Before you know it, taxpayers are financing everyone's exports.
ExIm tries to lash itself to improving export figures, but the bank doesn't move the needle much. U.S. goods and services exports last year totaled $2.1 trillion, of which ExIm's contribution is negligible.
The way to fight subsidies provided by other countries is through diplomacy and new trade deals, not by imitating their subsidies. The way to help U.S. exports is to reduce the tax, regulatory and lawsuit burden on business, negotiate new market opening abroad, and reduce American energy costs. That's what business should be lobbying for, not favors for some businesses over others.
Feb. 28, 2012
Greetings; The smart meter is being force onto us, we should be informed. We can file notification to remove implied consent. The video will give a short explanation. I can’t give legal advice, I not. I do urge people to educate themselves in signing ‘Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 or All Rights Reserved without Prejudice’ On most bills for service you will find ‘All Rights Reserved’, You think this is done to waste ink?
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/video/watch/129_technocracy_sustainable_development_and_the_smart_grid/ In Freedom