Press Releases


Entries in Editorial (17)


Rubens For US Senate - Foster's: Rubens May Be Just What the Republican Party Needs


The campaign continues to gain momentum as we pick up new supporters each and every week. This week was highlighted by some great media coverage. This included a Foster's Daily Democrat editorial titled: Jim Rubens can't be pidgeonholed that urged "voters of all political stripes to take the time to understand who Rubens is" and stating that "Rubens may prove to be just what the Republican Party needs".

Following that up, the NH Journal penned a piece noting that Rubens has "been actively campaigning for a shot at Shaheen for almost a year" and noting "he'll outwork the Senator and former Governor if given the chance".

Finally, the Londonderry Patch featured a recap of our fundraising event this week at the Coach Stop in Londonderry. Thank you to Peter McGrath of McGrath Law Firm and Steve McDonough for sponsoring this great event. If you would like to host an event, please let us know by visiting our volunteer page.

Please share these articles with your friends and be sure to like our Facebook page, which recently crossed 2,000 fans and continues to grow.

We need your help to share this message with as many people as possible. Can you support my campaign today by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or even up to $2,600?

Lastly, I wanted to thank Dave Delorey of Francestown for writing this letter to the editor. If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please visit This type of support is greatly appreciated.


Jim Rubens


Innis For Congress - Op-Ed In Union Leader Newspaper 


Manchester, NH - Dan Innis, Republican candidate for Congress in NH-CD1, published the following op-ed in today's Union Leader newspaper.

Small Business Smarts Will Get America Back To Work

By Dan Innis

It has been six years since the bailout and five years since the Stimulus. We have been stuck with ObamaCare for four years. Yet fewer Americans are working today than at the beginning of the recession. It is time for the advocates of big government to admit that we aren't going to spend our way into economic recovery. The only way to speed up this sluggish recovery is to get America back to work.

I'm running for Congress because I still have faith in the American economic miracle. In fact, my husband and I are currently expanding our own small business, and we're betting on a return to economic prosperity. Every small business success has its own story. That's one reason I'm launching a Jobs Tour, to hear directly from other New Hampshire entrepreneurs how they built their businesses, and what they need to create more jobs. 

Politicians are quick to take credit for every good piece of economic data, as if they were responsible for creating jobs. Every new hire, every start-up is because someone in the private sector took a risk.

It was a risk when we bought and renovated a small business in 2008. We hired two other employees, and reopened in 2009. That small operation was successful enough that we are now expanding, and will soon open The Hotel Portsmouth, which will employ a dozen people. That's more jobs than Carol Shea-Porter or Frank Guinta ever created in their eight years in Congress.

The hotel business is every bit as challenging as serving as Dean of the Paul School of Business and Economics at UNH. In that capacity, I oversaw over 100 faculty and staff, with an annual budget of $30 million, helping to educate nearly 2,500 students a year.

All of these experiences helped me create the Innis Agenda for Jobs and the Economy. The big-spending bailouts and stimulus bills that have come out of Washington D.C. have managed to create jobs only in Washington D.C. My plan acknowledges that we create jobs from the bottom up, one new employee at a time. My plan will strengthen the fiscal and regulatory climate in which entrepreneurs decide whether or not to start and expand their businesses, creating a more favorable climate for all businesses.

We can shift the incentive for job creation by removing federal obstacles. We should restore the 40-hour full-time work week. The 30-hour rule under ObamaCare is forcing employers to cut hours for part-time workers.

We can restore the Welfare to Work programs hailed by both Congressional Republicans and the Clinton Administration. The Obama White House has weakened these incentives through Executive Order.

We can require workers on unemployment to take part in state retraining programs if they stay on unemployment longer than six months. We must remove trade barriers, reform the way we fund our transportation infrastructure, and finally approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

The economy is threatened by the taxes and other job killing policies on ObamaCare, which is why I've already outlined a comprehensive health care plan. The $17 trillion national debt threatens our fiscal stability, which is why I have proposed a sweeping balanced budget agenda.

These are the job creation ideas I'm putting forward. I'd welcome similar plans from Frank Guinta and Carol Shea-Porter. Unfortunately, we haven't heard anything other than partisan talking points from either of them in quite some time.

Frankly, I'd welcome any ideas to get the economy moving again. Recent reports that ObamaCare will lead to two million fewer people in the workforce is a testament to how much Washington has damaged our economy. ObamaCare defenders even go so far to claim that millions of Americans staying home is a good thing. That's absurd.

We will speed up economic growth when we get more Americans back on the job, and my plan is the right first step.

Dan Innis is a Republican candidate for Congress in New Hampshire 1st District, and the former Dean of the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics at the University of New Hampshire. You can read the full Innis Agenda for Jobs and The Economy at 


NHDP - Concord Monitor Editorial: Legislation promotes workplace fairness 

KEY POINT: "The simple logic behind the legislation is this: Women in New Hampshire and across the country continue to be paid less than men for the same work. Sometimes they don’t even know it because workplace rules or culture make it impossible for them to find out. Without knowledge, they’re powerless to help themselves... It’s hard to imagine a state legislator who wouldn’t support the basic value of equal pay for equal work. They should prove it not just with words but with their votes."

Concord Monitor Editorial: Legislation promotes workplace fairness
(Published in print: Monday, January 27, 2014)

There’s a famous old episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show in which Mary Richards, the associate producer of a local TV news show, stumbles upon documentation that she’s being paid $50 less per week than the person who held her job before her. She marches boldly into the boss’s office and makes a stink. Mr. Grant tells her, candidly, that the difference is all about gender. Her predecessor was a man – and he had a family to support. Mary explains that such distinctions are immaterial. Mr. Grant, still clinging to his chauvinism, offers her an additional $20 per week. Mary’s not satisfied, but by the time the episode draws to a close, the boss relents, Mary gets her $50 raise and viewers have been klonked over the head with a lesson about pay equity.

Mary Richards never went to court, never called the Human Rights Commission or Department of Labor. She didn’t hire a lawyer, didn’t join a union. She certainly didn’t get harassed or fired for her protest. She never even hesitated to stand up for herself.

In real life, it wasn’t nearly so easy for women in the workplace in the 1970s. That remains true for some here in the 21st century, too. That’s why Concord Sen. Sylvia Larsen’s modest-sounding legislation makes good sense – and why the resistance voiced at a public hearing last week is wrong-headed.

Larsen has sponsored the New Hampshire Paycheck Fairness Act. It would require employers, upon a complaint, to prove that wage differentials between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work stem from factors other than gender. It would prohibit retaliation against workers who ask about their employers’ wage practices or who disclose their own wages to coworkers. It would strengthen penalties for equal-pay violations and require employers to display notices informing employees of their rights.

The simple logic behind the legislation is this: Women in New Hampshire and across the country continue to be paid less than men for the same work. Sometimes they don’t even know it because workplace rules or culture make it impossible for them to find out. Without knowledge, they’re powerless to help themselves.

Earlier this month, the Monitor published a compelling column by Lilly Ledbetter in these pages. Ledbetter’s Supreme Court case, in which the justices found that she had waited too long to complain about unequal pay to deserve compensation – even though she didn’t know about the inequity while it was happening – inspired federal legislation in her name to reverse the ruling. But as her column pointed out, the Ledbetter law was only a start. In arguing for a federal version of Larsen’s Paycheck Fairness Act, Ledbetter noted, “This action would help dismantle what was my largest barrier all those years ago – not knowing that I was being paid unfairly and having no way to find out. Few women have that information, and some don’t feel safe asking questions for fear of retaliation from their bosses. I was told I’d be fired if I shared salary information at work.”

Last week, state Sen. Andy Sanborn expressed skepticism about Larsen’s bill. “Do you know of any companies that are breaking the law today?” he asked. And Sen. Sam Cataldo said he’d seen no evidence of it himself.

But that’s just the point. Today, it’s sometimes difficult for employees – women and men alike – to learn about the wage structure where they work. If they’re being treated unfairly, they might even know it. And without evidence to prove it, they’re unlikely to complain to their senators or the courts.

It’s hard to imagine a state legislator who wouldn’t support the basic value of equal pay for equal work. They should prove it not just with words but with their votes.


NHDP - ICYMI - Hospital CEO: Not expanding Medicaid will cost New Hampshire 

Key Point:  FIFTEEN MILLION dollars. Sounds like a lot of money. In fact, it’s the amount of federal money New Hampshire is passing up each month in 2014 that we don’t act to expand health coverage for 50,000 low-income, uninsured citizens.

Union Leadder Op-ed: Not expanding Medicaid will cost New Hampshire
By Joseph Pepe

FIFTEEN MILLION dollars. Sounds like a lot of money. In fact, it’s the amount of federal money New Hampshire is passing up each month in 2014 that we don’t actto expand health coverage for 50,000 low-income, uninsured citizens.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal Medicaid program will pay the full cost of expanding coverage to people with incomes up to around $15,000 a year, or 133 percent of the poverty level. The federal government will pay the full cost for three years, and at least 90 percent of costs thereafter.

This may be the most important, ultimately solvable public policy issue facing New Hampshire legislators as we head into the 2014 legislative session. It has major ramifications for our economy, our businesses and our citizens.

Expanding health coverage is important for the uninsured, who often delay treatment only to end up in costly hospital emergency rooms when their untreated conditions worsen. It’s important for New Hampshire’s non-profit hospitals, who right now provide more than $500 million a year in free care for the uninsured — more than $29 million at CMC alone — an amount of free care that’s simply not sustainable for the future.

It’s important for the social fabric of our communities, ravaged by the effects of untreated mental health issues and substance abuse, which would be covered under expansion. 

It’s important for the vast majority of our citizens and business who have or offer health insurance, but whose premiums are being driven up in part by cost shifting by medical providers to pay for those without insurance.

But most of our citizens and policymakers support some form of expansion. They recognize the important, positive public health and economic benefits that come from expanding health coverage under the federal Medicaid program.

While it’s not surprising that hospitals and health advocacy organizations support expansion, many took notice when the Business and Industry Association (BIA) of New Hampshire, New Hampshire’s statewide chamber of commerce, raised its voice and endorsed Medicaid expansion.

The BIA identifies the high cost of health insurance as one of the top concerns for business owners in New Hampshire. The group recognizes the connection between population health and the state’s economic prosperity, and that regular, preventive care costs less, will lead to less utilization of health care services and ultimately lower health insurance costs for businesses and individuals. Quite simply, it makes smart business sense to expand coverage under the federal Medicaid program.

So, just how is it that New Hampshire finds itself heading into 2014 without a resolution on this key issue and about to leave $15 million a month on the table? 

This issue was debated thoroughly in the last session of the Legislature. A bipartisan commission met over the summer and made recommendations for a uniquely New Hampshire approach to expansion.

A special session of the Legislature convened in November, with policymakers from both sides of the aisle putting forth constructive proposals. Though the House and Senate couldn’t reach agreement on final wording, the differences between the two sides, though very real, are in fact, very small.

With a bipartisan majority of policymakers favoring some form of expansion, it would seem that all parties should be able to come together to reach an agreement that makes sense for New Hampshire. 

Given the range of important, though complex, health care issues facing our state — restructuring of the Medicaid Enhancement Tax; improving reimbursement rates for providers; reforming our mental health system — expanding health coverage should be a relatively easy problem to solve.

With 2014 fast approaching, it’s encouraging to see lawmakers back at the table working on this issue. Let’s hope for speedy action and resolution early in the session. Fifteen million dollars a month is too much money to leave on the table.

Dr. Joseph Pepe is president and CEO of Catholic Medical Center Healthcare System.


Innis For Congress - Foster's Editorial: Innis "A Republican With A Plan" 

Article published Dec 7, 2013


Here's a Republican with a plan

We are not about to suggest the Almighty is planning to intervene in the 2014 race to unseat Democratic U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. But the thought is intriguing after opening a recent batch of emails.

First, we found a missive from the National Democratic Campaign Committee castigating would-be Republican challengers Frank Guinta and Dan Innis of offering nothing to replace ObamaCare.

Then, as if Innis' campaign team was omniscient, we found a commentary explaining how to do just that. 

As part of the "Innis Agenda for Health Care, the email explains: " ... we can't afford to wait for a new President in 2017 to start bringing meaningful reform to our health care system today ... We need bold ideas and common sense solutions, and we shouldn't be dependent on the federal government to get it done. After all, it is clear that the federal government cannot get it done."

Some may argue ObamaCare is yet to be proven a failure. But even if it does start limping down the road on only three of four cylinders, it is in great need of repair. To that end Innis suggests:

  •  Give people the freedom to choose whether they want to enroll in ObamaCare. Let anyone keep their current insurance plan if they want it. 
  •  Repeal the ACA's perverse Medical Device Tax on everything from tongue depressors to MRI machines.
  •  Let consumers freely shop for insurance across state lines. By broadening risk pools and spurring competition among insurance companies, costs will come down. 
  • Streamline the tax code to give individuals the ability to deduct the cost of their health insurance just like businesses. 
  • Remove artificial limits on Health Savings Accounts and Medical Retirement Accounts. These programs allow Americans to set aside pre-tax dollars for future health care expenses.
  •  Medical malpractice reforms can reduce costs. 
  • Revise the approval process for lifesaving drugs so they can reach the marketplace sooner, thus reducing costs and saving lives. (See editor's note below.)
  •  Look for solutions outside Washington like Rhode Island's use of a modernized Medicaid program which has saved $2.3 billion, while improving access for low-income patients.


As frequent readers are aware we have been editorially critical of the Republican Party's lack of ambition in coming up with an alternative to ObamaCare. While there have been bits and piece promoted - such as tort reform - a comprehensive package has remained elusive.

We are not suggesting Innis has found the Holy Grail of health care reform nor that he has earned our endorsement. 

But he can claim some credit for starting to turn the tables on Democrats who have rightfully been able to tell Republicans to put up or shut up. 

Well, Innis isn't shutting up; he is putting up. 

Editor's note: U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte recently took up the cause of putting lifesaving drugs to quicker use. She has urged the federal Food and Drug Administration to grant an exception to a 2012 ban on a drug that may be able to help McKenzie Lowe, a 12-year-old Hudson girl battling a rare and aggressive form of brain cancer. (Nashua Telegraph)

Link to editorial: