This coming week, the House is set to take up a so-called bipartisan constitutional amendment on education funding. But the amendment is bipartisan only in the sense that it is supported by both Democrat and Republican House members. As far as the substance is concerned, the amendment is totally one-sided in the Democrats’ favor.

Essentially, the amendment writes the Supreme Court’s misbegotten Claremont/Londonderry decisions into the State Constitution. More specifically, the Legislature would be required to define an adequate education, determine its cost, and fund the cost exclusively with state taxes. All of this would be done under the highest level of judicial oversight.

What this means is that anybody can go to court at any time and sue the Legislature on the grounds that it hasn’t properly defined an adequate education and/or that it hasn’t set the cost high enough, and it will be the Legislature’s burden to prove otherwise. As a practical matter, unelected judges will have the ultimate say on what is taught in the public schools, how it is taught, and how much we are taxed to pay for it.

According to Republican policy leader Gene Chandler, this amendment “meets our Republican ideals.” If Chandler and other Republican “leaders” really believe that the education mandarins in Concord can make better education policy than local school boards, teachers and parents, and that unelected judges should have the ultimate say on the curriculum and cost of public education, to paraphrase Obi-Wan, “Well then they are truly lost.”

If this amendment passes, say goodbye forever to local control. The education mandarins in Concord would determine what the locals should be paying for public education. And those school districts that did not receive full funding would have to make up the difference through the local property tax.

And say hello to a broad-based tax. Because the amendment envisions the Supreme Court having the final say on the cost of an adequate education, anybody can run into Court and claim that the $1 billion the Legislature has determined an adequate education costs is “inadequate.” If the Court agrees, the amendment requires the Legislature to pay for whatever the Court says the cost is.

The only tweak to Londonderry/Claremont is that the Legislature would not have to distribute funding on a comparable per pupil basis. However, at the insistence of House Republican leadership the amendment also provides “every school district shall receive a meaningful share of these funds.” In other words, no town, no matter how affluent, can be denied a “meaningful” spot at the education funding trough. Let the feeding frenzy begin!

The so-called bipartisan amendment is not just antithetical to “Republican ideals”, it is also really stupid politics.

Republicans are going to lose, not gain, votes in the 2008 election by supporting this amendment. Voters who believe that unelected, elitist judges should be running our public schools aren’t going to suddenly switch their affiliation to Republican. On the other hand, voters who believe in fiscal responsibility and/or local control and/or that the judicial branch has no business setting education policy will have good reasons not to vote Republican.

But it is not just public education where elected Republicans are truly lost. Can you name a single major policy proposal that Republicans have brought forward since John Lynch was elected Governor back in 2004?

Worse still, it’s not just that Republicans are only offering “same-but-less”, rather, some of the most egregious examples of “nanny-state” legislation in the last legislative session have been supported and sponsored by Republicans. For example, it was Republican State Senator Bob Clegg who sponsored legislation mandating that health insurers cover bariatric surgery.

Republicans seem to be staking the entire 2008 campaign on the State’s budget deficit. One problem with this strategy is that voters don’t get all that worked up about deficits. Remember Ross Perot? All he talked about during the 1992 election was the deficit, and all that got him was a distant third place.

The other problem with making the 2008 election all about the deficit is that we won’t really have a handle on the size of the deficit until 2009 because that is when most of the red-ink is projected to occur.

What Rep. Chandler and the other Republican “leaders” don’t seem to understand is that you can’t beat something with nothing. And, aside from carping –albeit quite correctly– about the budget deficit they appear to have no alternative approaches to the issues facing the State.

Those pesky Granite State gun owners have damaged the anti-gun spin machine of the Violence Policy Center.  In a recent news release, the credibility-challenged VPC proclaimed, "Pro-Gun States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates.” The news release goes on to say, “The analysis [of data from the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York.”

The VPC dares not look at the bottom seven (7) states instead of the arbitrary five (5). That is because, lo and behold, New Hampshire ranks seventh from the bottom in per-capita gun deaths. New Hampshire is undeniably a strong pro-gun state that greatly respects the individual right to keep and bear arms.  New Hampshire is beat only by sixth-place Connecticut, the home of “Gun Valley,” a major area of gun making in the United States.  For that matter, all of New England is in the bottom 12.  Low gun deaths in New England are more attributable to the culture and character of the region than to the availability of firearms.  By contrast, the West is still somewhat wild and the South has not fully lost its rebel yell.

The VPC also has to purposely limit their selectively picked data to states rather than cities. This is because the one jurisdiction with the strictest gun control in the entire nation is the District of Columbia. In D.C., all handguns are banned, long arms must be stored disassembled, locked, and unloaded, and law-abiding citizens have no right to carry guns. According to the same 2005 CDC data relied upon by the VPC in their news release, D.C. has the highest death rate of any place in the US!  D.C has well over double the national average.

The VPC also conveniently fails to mention that the total number of deaths in the entire United States is ever so slightly over one hundredth of one percent — .0103% to be exact, and that is with approximately 250 million guns in the country.  Additionally, those are all firearm deaths, including police shootings, justifiable self defense, and suicide.

The reason for the VPC’s new propaganda push is obvious, and they unknowingly reveal it in their news release. They are scared “to death” of the very real possibility of a Supreme Court victory in June for the Second Amendment in the celebrated Heller case. Ironically, the Heller case is a challenge to the very D.C. anti-gun law ignored by the VPC.  VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "Blind allegiance to the Second Amendment comes at a deadly price. Many residents in pro-gun states cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand as proof of the need for such laws.” Well, unfortunately for the VPC agenda, the District of Columbia torpedoes their glorification of anti-gun laws and New Hampshire stands as granite counter-proof that there is no need for such laws.

MAY DAY! MAY DAY! – The call of people in distress; also, the name of May 1^st, traditionally more of a “Labor Day” than the one in September.

These days, “distress” and “labor” go together. Workers’ work is earning far, far less, either in real terms [their inflation-adjusted earnings have declined] or as a share of earned incomes [in an economy in which the share of the rich has risen by leaps and bounds]. Thus, rising inequality is a sleeper (read between the lines) issue of this 2008 political year, to become a time bomb of an issue if we don’t start to do something about it now.

What’s to be done? First, try to get to the root of the problem. One fundamental source is that garden-variety wage and salary workers aren’t receiving shares of the profits and other wealth that their work helps to produce. Some firms have profit-sharing plans. Others have “ESOPs” – Employee Stock Ownership Plans. The latter are preferable since shares of stock embrace all company assets, not just profits. Several studies have shown that companies with ESOPs perform better than those without.

Another source is that, while paying through the nose as gas prices rise, American workers are not receiving any shares of the considerable profits being accumulated by “Big Oil” from our nation’s (diminishing) natural resource of oil, nor from any other natural resources whose prices are also rising in the commodities markets. The exception is Alaska, whose citizens receive an annual check from the Alaska Permanent Fund, derived from oil revenues produced in the state.

A third source is the negative rate of return on the forced savings that American workers contribute to Social Security for their own retirement.

Anybody seriously concerned with the ability of American workers to earn “living wages” that can support families will do more than claim an increase in the minimum wage as a major accomplishment. The evidence shows that it “helps” no more than a small minority of the nation’s workforce and leads to a loss of entry-level jobs. The next Congress will need to do much more. A good start would be threefold:

(1) In light of a generation of experience, liberalize and improve laws to encourage and enable the spread of employee stock ownership.

(2) Allow more oil drilling on public lands and increase lease rates and royalties that oil companies would have to pay for the privilege. [At the state level, states with considerable natural resources should look at the Alaskan model.]

(3) Require that workers’ Social Security funds are invested to earn a significantly positive rate of return – by putting the funds into a true, secure trust fund in the form of a public/private partnership that would invest them in a broad spectrum of American enterprise. This would negate the need to raise the already high rate of FICA taxation to maintain Social Security.

The bylines of these suggestions are: “Everyman an entrepreneur!” by broadening the base of ownership, “Spread the Wealth!” and “Let’s hear it for the American worker!”

Yet, these points are but a partial beginning of an effort to deal with a long-run, fundamental issue. Let’s get a discussion going. Comments? Other suggestions? Reply to peterj@peterbearseforcongress.com.

Peter Bearse, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist, author of Mobilizing Capital & Services: The New Economy (co-author), and Candidate for Congress, NH CD #1. Released by Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress on May 1, 2008.

Last Sunday evening we were treated to a rare delight, the 'Keynote Speaker' at the Detroit NAACP Dinner.

Carried 'live' by two national TV networks, regular white folk were afforded the opportunity to be addressed by a leading Black Liberation Theologian who was speaking to 'us' rather than to his 'normal' congregation. Jeremiah Wright explained in a very lucid manner why he felt that color did indeed make people different, he went to considerable length to differentiate the cognitive reality perceived by black and white.

A speech with sufficient examples of both African and European origin thought processes to assure 'us' many times over that "Indeed Change is Coming".

In quite a different manner of Speech than those given within his Home Church, Wright left no doubt of the differences between the way he and his followers, including as stated last evening, the Nation of Islam, see what they wish our Country should be from the Country which predominantly white Europeans have built.

No recognition was given for the evolution and emancipation of the last two centuries, only "That Change is Coming" 

No inkling of fault being with anyone except the white majority who must accept "The Change which is Coming"

Given such a Speech, by Barack Obama's current Pastor ( until the end of May, according to his introducer that evening ) it is totally beyond my comprehension just how a President with the thought processes described in such detail by Jeremiah Wright could possibly represent ALL of the people, including those who 'think so differently'.

Especially a prospective President (and spouse ) who have been Wright's congregants and friends for twenty years.

Wright made no attempt to offer any exceptions to his 'Thought Process' paradigm, thus including ALL black people in his characterization.

Until this Speech a lot of white folk had no idea that the difference was so profound. Probably  a large number of both black and white folk, could and should, disagree with Wright's Speech and his reasoning, but now it is out there for Obama to suffer the consequence.

Liberation Theology has changed the political face of Latin America in the last four decades into a communist dominated society. "Change has Indeed Arrived in those Countries".

This Speech, without being specific, left little doubt as to the implied "Change" facing the United States of America. 

Thank You, Jeremiah Wright, for explaining so clearly !!

note: Please go to   www.socinian.org/liberty.html   for a basic definitive Paper on Liberation Theology

Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey has resigned under pressure from Governor John Lynch. I find that amazing since a panel of her piers, The Judicial Conduct Committee, only recommended a three(3) month suspension and the NH Supreme Court imposed a three (3) year suspension.

Since Judge Coffee participated in fraud by helping her disbarred husband by hiding personal assets, why wasn’t she disbarred and fired? She and her husband cost NH taxpayers thousands of dollars when she helped hide $10,000 from stock sales and hid $76,000 from the sale of an office condo. This money was supposed to be used to reimburse the NH court system for investigative costs.

Oh well! I suppose the suspension is better than disbarment and allows her to collect a pension and still earn a living as a lawyer.

General John Stark did not mean that trusted government officials should live on the state when he said; “Live Free or Die”.

Bless her heart, which is certainly in the right place, but strategy and tactics matter. The effort she spearheaded to deliver an impeachment resolution from the NH House to the US Congress was doomed from the start. Not to mention the damage done not only to the impeachment movement, but to Democrats’ electoral chances in November, in both NH and beyond.

Let’s go back to July, 2007, when 50+ “fired-up and ready-to-go” activists, including this writer, met in Worcester, Massachusetts to launch what would come to be known as the NorthEast Impeachment Coalition (NEIC). Speaking for myself, it was a heady, exhilarating, and well-run several hours, where we broke into working groups, both by state (NH, VT, MA, NY, CT, RI, ME) and to discuss campaign tactics and opportunities. Much was accomplished and tentatively decided upon. Each state chose a spokesperson for the event to brief the assembled on what they hoped to individually achieve.

We discussed organizing a proper political issue campaign with fundraising, events, advertising, phone banking, building NH public pressure on our US House Representatives, et.al. We together conceived of a major culminating rally/teach-in at Dartmouth College on September 26, 2007 to capitalize on the Democratic Presidential Debate venue, and the intense international media that would already be on-site. Adding a roster of headline speakers and panelists to draw crowds and attention was also suggested.

We chose Betty Hall to report on our proposals for NH. Much was made of the opportunity of the NH Primary and its accompanying media attention to jumpstart our campaign.

I left the summit meeting energized and ready for the next step of a core meeting of NH activists to plan and implement our campaign.

It never happened.

Despite numerous requests to convene a meeting time and place, Betty put it off and unilaterally chose to focus only on the proposed Dartmouth event. We all exchanged operational suggestions in anticipation of holding our organizational meeting, but Betty ultimately refused to set a time or venue for it, stating flatly, “I understood at the Summit that I was the leader and coordinator by designation not election. If the pilot (me) doesn’t fly low and slow enough you can grab your parachute and jump if you wish.” “ If you can't work this way, please feel free to withdraw from the process.”

I decided to pick up my blocks and play in another sandbox. I’d seen this type of petty ego politics in other progressive activist quixotic campaigns, and understood that any energy invested would be ultimately squandered and ineffective.

No long-term strategic goals were ever set, and tactics were, as Betty wrote, “…flying by the seat our pants.” Building a substantial foundation of public support is a prerequisite for success in issue campaigns but this advice and requirement was inexplicably ignored.

So, they went on to produce a nearly invisible and poorly-attended teach-in at Dartmouth College two months AFTER the Democratic Presidential Debate had come and gone. Still without a proper campaign and the required grassroots advance work of building adequate support, Betty went ahead with re-introducing her NH House impeachment resolution (HR24). As a result , it had little chance of success by itself, and even less as a tactic to force the opening of impeachment hearings in the US House of Representatives.

The rally in Concord last week (April 14^th) was moving and inspirational – Dan Ellsberg, Jon Nichols, Granny D, Betty herself and everyone else were wonderful, but at that point a successful campaign would have turned out thousands not hundreds of attendees, not to mention high-profile national and regional media attention.

The effort attracted few new converts and failed to connect with and energize tens (and possibly hundreds) of thousands of potential sympathizers in New Hampshire.

A key observation of many NH State Reps was that most of the emails they received in support of the resolution were from out-of-state. Who can blame them for being unwilling to take a political stand with such thin constituency support? Properly implemented, this campaign could have built a robust movement in NH, and approval of HR24 would have blown through the NH House by a two-to-one margin.

But such does not happen in a vacuum, plus this specific initiative should have been part of an overall strategy, not a “seat of our pants” crapshoot. Just because an issue is true, important and right does not bring success. God helps those who help themselves. We have to do the footwork.

Political activists take note: If we want to win, whether elective office or issues, it requires strategic goals and a well-organized, well-planned, goal-oriented campaign.

The tragedy is that for freedom-loving patriots, across the American political spectrum, this was not just another issue, it is THE ISSUE. Unlike e.g., “flag-pins” and “flip-flops”, it is about preserving the foundation of our liberty - our sacred US Constitution and the rule of law.

The failure of this specific effort and of the impeachment movement in general may have historic consequences that we’ll all have to live with, perhaps for generations. Our American Republic is under assault and its defenders are inadequately organized.

And yes – I am also personally responsible and apologize for my own failure of resolve. Perhaps more could have be accomplished if I hadn’t taken no for an answer.

The fat lady has not yet sung, but she's clearing her throat.

Well, FairPoint Communications Corp. has officially taken over Verizon’s “land lines” and DSL services. I sided with New Hampshire ’s Consumer Advocate and the Chair of New Hampshire’s Public Utilities Commission and said that it was not a good fit for New Hampshire residents.

Promises! Promises! I just received my first bill from FairPoint and found out that they do not have a website that is capable of paying my phone or internet bill. I have a choice of using my bank’s “bill pay” or sending a paper check.

The explanation I received was that they needed time to set this up. Hmmmm! Wouldn’t you think that as “technology savvy” company like FairPoint was touted by supporters would already be “on line” to receive payments? After all, part of their deal depended on cash flow to support the acquisition and building the DSL network .

Creepy Politics?

When Barack Obama needed contacts to help his 'community' efforts in Chicago some twenty years ago, he turned to a very dynamic preacher. Jeremiah Wright was in the process of building a congregation from less than one hundred to several thousand. Openly, and under the conventional radar, he based the premise of 'social theology' in a racially appealing, politically motivated manner which attracted attention only within the black community. ( Wright deserves to be recognized for such an achievement.) 

The relationship worked very successfully for both Obama and Wright, not just coincidentally it also worked for Louis Farakhan, another close associate of the congregation. All parties grew to achieve national stature.

Then, Barack Obama became a candidate for President of the United States of America, until he gained 'front runner status' his prior relationships were not relevant, now they are.

Why did Jeremiah Wright retire as soon as the relevance or connection between the two began to be significant?

Is it really necessary to be the 'past Pastor' to attempt expiation of Obama?

The fact is that the Pastor, retired or not, has now surpassed Jesse Jackson etal as the most recognized spokesman for most of the black community. 

It must be posited that the growth of his message during the past ONE week has eclipsed a million times the growth of the previous twenty years.

If Obama 'used' Wright to achieve his goals, now it would appear that Wright's message has superseded that of Obama, only time will tell which man is the more important to our Country and the direction which we shall take.

Certainly Jeremiah Wright has clearly 'stayed on message', whilst Obama is attempting the biggest 'flip-flop' ever attempted in political history.

John Clark,   Louisville Ky (former resident Peterborough, NH)

When might our yearning for simplicity lead us astray? – When dealing with the economy. We see this happening now with schemes for tax reform. We recognize that current tax arrangements have become mind-numbingly complex and rather unfair. So we seek a simple tax. Enter Steve Forbes with a “Flat Tax.” Never mind that it fails to address the root of our economy’s failings. Never mind that it’s just another income tax with which Congress can play its social engineering via tax incentives’ games. It’s flat; and since, according to Tom Friedman, the economic world is also “flat,” flat must be good.

And so we have the all three Republican candidates for Congress in the 1st C.D. competing on flatness -- on how quickly and strongly they recommended the Flat Tax. Unfortunately, they’re informed by ideology, not economic understanding. Why would a Flat Tax be good for the economy? What basic economic problem would it help to solve? What good would it do besides providing less business for accountants, lawyers and H.R. Block?

The major source of our economic problems is that we have been living far beyond our means. Savings have been very low and sometimes negative (dis-saving). Consumption has been unsustainably high. We have financed higher spending by drawing down equity in our major asset, our homes. Our trade deficit has been consistently negative, with imports far higher than exports. Our federal deficit has ballooned. Private debt has risen like the flames of a house afire. China and oil exporting countries have supported our excess spending by buying our country’s debt – to the extent that their “Sovereign Investment Funds” are buying our industry. How does a Flat tax address these problems? It doesn’t. It is simply a simple-minded, politically inoffensive expedient.

What would help us get a grip on our economic future? – a Consumption Tax [CT], otherwise (though somewhat misleadingly) called a “national sales tax.” As you can tell from the name, it taxes spending on consumption, not income, savings or investment. Thus, by its very nature, it provides disincentives to excess consumption and positive incentives for higher savings, investment and earnings.It is not nearly as simple as a Flat Tax. Members of Congress can still try to play games with it to favor some interests over others. Yet, it’s better than the current income tax and the proposed Flat Tax in its ability to help us strengthen and rebuild our economy.

Another advantage is that the CT would force our government to live within its means. This is because calculations show that a “reasonable” CT rate (say, 7-12%) would not generate enough revenue to finance the U.S. government at its current, excessive rate of expenditure. So what!, says this economist. It’s about time that Washington has to live within its means. To the extent that this is deemed to be a serious issue, we can consider another so-called tax which is not a tax but a fee on undesirable pollutants – a “Carbon Tax”. This would, in turn, be better than the highly touted “cap and trade” arrangements to reduce carbon emissions and fight global warming. But this calls for more discussion.

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D.
International Consulting Economist
March 16, 2008

If your child's school observes the homosexual sponsored "Day of Silence, (DOS)" keep your child at home April 25, 2008.

Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing "Day of Silence (DOS)." DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. By remaining silent, the intent of the pro-homosexual students is to disrupt the classes while promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. DOS leads the students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate. Students are taught that homosexuality is a worthy lifestyle, homosexuality has few or no risks, and individuals are born homosexual and cannot change. Those who oppose such teaching are characterized as ignorant and hateful bigots.

Be sure of the date that DOS is planned for your school. (The national date is April 25, but some schools observe DOS on a different date.)  Call your school and see if they plan to celebrate DOS and if so, on what date. 

These are your schools do as you choose! do as you choose!

Here is a partial list of the schools in New Hampshire which are presently expected to participate in DOS

ALVIRNE HIGH SCHOOL
BREWSTER ACADEMY
CAMPBELL HIGH SCHOOL
COE-BROWN SCHOOL
CONCORD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
DERRYFIELD SCHOOL
DOVER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
HILLSBORO-DEERING HIGH SCHOOL
HOPKINTON HIGH SCHOOL
KEENE HIGH SCHOOL
KINGSWOOD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
LEBANON HIGH SCHOOL
LONDONDERRY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MANCHESTER CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
MANCHESTER MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
MASCENIC REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
MERRIMACK HIGH SCHOOL
NASHUA HIGH SCHOOL - NORTH
NASHUA HIGH SCHOOL- SOUTH
NEW HAMPTON COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
NEWMARKET JR-SR HIGH
OYSTER RIVER HIGH SCHOOL
PHILLIPS EXETER ACADEMY
PINKERTON ACADEMY
PLYMOUTH REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
PORTSMOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
SALEM HIGH SCHOOL
SOMERSWORTH HIGH SCHOOL
SPAULDING HIGH SCHOOL
ST PAUL'S SCHOOL
TIMBERLANE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
WINNACUNNET HIGH SCHOOL