Rep Steve Vaillancourt


The Buffett Rule--Cheat Till You're Caught!

Did I dream this or could it possibly be true?

The same day that the Demagogue In Chief (aka Barack Obama) was in Florida pusing his version of the Buffett rule, one of the great investor's companies (NetJets) is being sued by the IRS for more than a quarter billion of tax evasion (or was it Jimmie Buffett?).

No, I'm pretty sure it a Buffett named Warren.

Yes, the company being sued  by the IRS (after years of shilly shallying by the great investor) is a subsiary of Berkshire Hathway, Warren Buffett's shining star, and it's not just for small change.

You just can't make this stuff up.

When the lame stream media refers to the Buffett Rule from now on, it won't be about taxing the rich more; it'll be about uber rich like Buffet doing as much as possible to cheat on their taxes!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Buffett!  No one, including the Anointed One, should ever take this clown seriously again.

By the way, the Anointed One decided last week to attack Social Darwinism.  Just like I've alwyas been a Darwinist, I've always been a student of Social Darwinism, going back to my days studying history at Plymouth State, and I contend with no lack of pride that being a Social Darwinist is a good thing, a very good thing indeed!  It's the social Darwinist spirit, the entrepreneurial spirit, that made Warren The Tax Cheater Buffett such a wealthy man!  Unlike the spirit of Socialism which seems to animate Barack Obama, Social Darwinism is as American American as cheating on your taxes.  (Just kidding...or am I?).


"Liberty Express" Revels In Flowers, Baseball, Absenteeism

As promised last week, the April flower fields of Holland are featured in the second half hour of this week's "Liberty Express" which airs Monday at 10 p.m., Tuesday at 11 p.m., Wednesday at 9 p.m., and Sunday at noon on ManchesterTV23 (always available at

This segment was filmed more than 20 years ago, but I dare say, the flowers probably look about the same today.  If you ever plan to visit Amsterdam (my third favorite city in the world behind Montreal and Berlin), this is the time of year to do it.  Flower fields are in bloom at Kuekenhof (25 kilometers southwest of the city), and April 30 is Queens Day, a celebration unlike anything else in the world--you really should partake of it once in a lifetime.

As I film flowers ("If you've seen one flower, you've seen them all"?), I relate a bit of history of the royal Dutch family.  To prevent boredom, the spiders and weasels from last week continue to run in the bottom of the screen.

Snake and Weasel exterminator needed--send resume to Liberty Express.

The first half of the show is less political than usual (although I manage to list a dozen Manchester Reps who have an absolutely abysmal attendance record--you don't have to thank me) because I'm hooked on baseball these days, especially after I heard that for the first time since 19-- both the Red Sox and Yankees have opened with 0-3 records.

Trivia--fill in the blank.  (I was a sophomore in high school).

Yes, that would be 1966, the year the Orioles swept the Dodgers in four straight in the World well I remember watching it.

Here's another great trivia question--The Orioles won the final two games of that series 1-0 on solo home runs in each game.  Who hit them?

Having just finished reading Phil Pepe's outstanding account of  “1961* (a memorable year in my life; my brother was born and we moved from Shoreham to Vergennes, Vt.—I was in fifth grade), the year Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle battled for the home run championship and Babe Ruth's record*, I also share a few highlights from the book, including the story Whitey Ford striking out Willie Mays in the 1961 All Star game using a spit ball.

What?  Whitey Ford a cheater?  Just ask Jim Boutin, author of “Ball Four” which I also read from during the show.

Apparently so.

The answer is Frank Robinson (of course) and Paul Blair.

Oh yes, I also run a clip of the GSA rappers stealing taxpayer money on their junket, but that's old hat by now, having hit the lame stream media like Grant took Richmond.

I also read David McCullough’s excellent "The Greater Journey--Americans In Paris" and offer a quote from the mother of Elihu Washburne (the American ambassador to France during the brutal Franco-Prussian War).  It's something seven Manchester Reps will especially dislike, something about losing all honor when you break your word.

Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle pose with Babe Ruth's widow during their record-setting 1961 season. (AP Images/File Photo)


VETO WATCH--Tax Money For Religious Schools (HB1607)

            Let’s begin a new series here called Veto Watch.  For each entry, we’ll take a bill passed by the New Hampshire House and attempt to determine whether in fact it will ever become law.  For the sake of this exercise, let’s assume that the New Hampshire Senate defers to the House’s wishes and passes the bill, something not all certain as we learned last week with the bill challenges voters at the polls.

            First up is House Bill 1607, titled “establishing an education tax credit”.

            This terrible piece of legislation (in my opinion of course) passed the House by a 173-127 vote on March 29, and that in itself should be enough to know that this bill will never become law.  No amount of intimidation or coercion by a Speaker known for his boorish tactics can save this travesty.

            Note that only 300 people were present for the vote, quite typical of House attendance recently, so poor that week after week, the Speaker has taken it upon himself to install armed police at the door to prevent Reps from leaving lest we fall below a quorum.  This tactic, of course, merely penalizes those who are living up to their oath and showing up.  The 100 or so absent Reps cannot be trapped into the Hall by the Speaker since they never bother to show up.

            Since two-thirds is required to override a veto, and since nearly all Democrats stick together on a veto vote, we can determine that depending on attendance, 25-30 Republican votes will be needed to sustain a veto from Governor Lynch.

            Currently there are 294 Republicans, 104 Democrats, and two vacant seats.

            House Bill 173 would take rob money from taxpayers and send up to religious institutions for tuition, but of course since that is unconstitutional (in not one but two sections of our founding document), Republican sponsors of this bill have entered into a gigantic money laundering scheme to try to make it legal.

            The bill calls for businesses to give scholarships to private schools, but the businesses would receive tax credits for the scholarships thus lowering their taxes thus raising the taxes everyone else must pay.

            No Mafia Don has ever conjured a more ingenious plan to launder money yet Republicans, who claim to be the party of less taxation, have tried to pass this scheme over and over again.

            I’ve always voted against it, and enough Republicans have always joined me to stop it from ever getting out of the House.  This time it got out of the House, but notice the margin was only 57.7 percent (far short of the 66.7 percent needed to override a veto).

            As significantly, 49 Republicans joined 78 Democrats (all but one, Keene’s Kris Roberts) in opposing the bill.  Former Finance Chair Neal Kurk, R-Weare, even spoke against it on the House floor.  No one would ever accuse Rep. Kurk of lacking the courage to defy O’Brien and leadership (it’s amazing he hasn’t been thrown of the Finance Committee yet).

            Rep. Kurk rightly pointed out how this would increase taxes for the rest of us, but the majority of Republicans (122), in their unquenched lust to provide tax money for religious education, just wouldn’t listen to Rep. Kurk.

            Assuming this bill gets through the Senate, it is certain to be vetoed by Governor Lynch, and it appears to have more than enough Republicans to sustain the veto (only two are among  the weak-minded and weak-souled Manchester Reps…some dare call them weasels…who were coerced into breaking their pledge to stand together on the redistricting override).

            Those two would be Kathleen Cusson-Cail and Ross Terrio, both from word seven.  Since their word means nothing to them, they could undoubtedly be cowed into voting for an override, but that would still leave 47 Republicans (plus those among the 96 who were absent for the vote).

            Manchester Republicans were 9-6 in favor of this bad bill; Manchester Democrats were 8-0 against it; no fewer than 12 of 35 Manchester Reps were absent for the vote!  (If you think that’s bad, consider this.  For another vote the same day, 17 (nearly half) were absent as Manchester continues its tradition of having the worst attendance in the state.

You just can’t make this stuff up.  (Hey, maybe it’s just that the Speaker chose to steal two seats away from Manchester in his redistricting plan)

By county, are the 49 Republicans who dared oppose this sure-to-be-vetoed bill which in effect would be a new tax on all New Hampshire citizens!

Belknap—Luther, Millham, Chair Swinford.

Carroll—Knox, Stephen Schmidt.

            Cheshire—Byrnes, Charles Moore, Robert Moore.


            Grafton—Bullis, Simard.

            Hillsborough—Finance Division Chairs Kurk and Belvin, Buxton, Cail, Chair Daniels, Erickson, Graham, Barry, Belanger, James Coffey, LeBrun, Messier, Michael Reed, Proulx, Terrio, Vaillancourt, Whitehead, and Willette.

            Merrimack—Kidder, Lockwood, Palfrey.

            Rockingham—Abrami, Allen, Azarian, Copeland, Elliott, Fesh, Headd, James Sullivan, Janvrin, Katsakiores, Larry Perkins, Sytek, Webb, and Ward.

            Strafford—Julie Brown, Munck.


Next time--we'll look at two abortiion bills and the odds of them surviving nearly certain vetoes.


The Reading Room--O'Brien As A Stalinst?

            The Reading Room is a regular feature of this blog and on “The Liberty Express” which airs on Manchestertv23 Monday at 10 p.m., Tuesday at 11 p.m., Thursday at 9 p.m., and Sunday at noon (always available at


Deathride [Kindle Edition]

John Mosier 

         “Death Ride—Hitler vs. Stalin:  The Eastern Front, 1941-1945  By John Mosier

             Just what we need, huh?  Another book fighting the war on the Eastern Front over again.  Only those hooked on Hitler or Stalin or both could possibly need such a book, right?

            I plead guilty as charged, but there are shades of a modern day fable in this effort, at least for those of use living the Bill O'Brien regime in New Hampshire.

            The pictures of Hitler and Stalin facing each other on the cover of this book is enough to sell it for those of us so inclined, but then comes the back cover blurbs promising a new assessment of the war.  We even get Steve Forbes (yes, he of Forbes Magazine fame, the one who helped build a new Channel 9 with his commercial buys during that Presidential run) saying the book “tosses military history hand grenades on almost every page, challenging just about every generally held notion about World War II.  Even if you take issue with some of Mosier’s interpretations, you’ll find this a superb read.”

            What’s not to like about that?

            Actually, Steve Forbes is right.

            Usually more interested in diplomatic rather than military history (a blow by blow description kind of like a sporting event), I approached this book with some trepidation.  I thought maybe I’d skip around, glancing at sections here and there.

            I ended up reading it page by page and especially recommend the final three chapters, the ones which look back from an end-of-the-war perspective.

            Although Hitler is pictured on the cover and naturally plays a major role in the story, this book is first and foremost about Stalinist deceptions, about his attempts to rewrite history, to make World War II live on as the Great Patriotic War in which Russians sacrificed everything to throw back the Nazi menace.

            Mosier’s thesis is that Russia could never have prevailed were it not for Allied help, not only with second, third, and fourth fronts, but with millions of tons of materials supplied to the Soviets.

            Mosier charges Stalin with being the most brutal murderer of them all, killing ten million of his own people prior to the war, wiping out his own general staff, and then using soldiers as cannon fodder throughout the war.

            In Mosier’s view, the Germans never really lost at the gates of Moscow or Stalingrad or even in Kursk, that they would have come back and won the war had it not been for the Allies.

            Whether you believe that or not, you need to read this book just to realize what an expert at mythology and brutality Stalin was.  In fact, I cannot think of New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien as I read this book.  Stalin would simply have had the likes of Susan Emerson, Tony Soltani, Rep. Copeland and I (and anyone who dared speak out against him) killed…no questions asked.  O’Brien, realizing that he can’t just shoot us, goes to elaborate Stalinst efforts to lie about us and demean our reputations.

            Make no mistake, you can’t read this book without thinking that Bill O’Brien is a modern day Stalinst.  Like Stalin threw millions of Russians to their deaths in senseless battles, O’Brien is throwing the Republican Party and dozens of Reps away as cannon fodder.

            As Stalin tried to rewrite history, O’Brien hires legal counsel and advisors to make black seem like white and vise versa.

            Of Stalin it was said, “Everything is true, except the facts.”

            So too with Bill O’Brien.

            Of Stalin it was said, “The future was fixed and known; only the past was constantly changing.”

            In other words, as long as he was alive, Stalin could always kill enough people to fix plaster his version of the past onto the future.

            Of course, he couldn’t like forever, and after his death Nikita Khrushchev exposed his lies.

            O’Brien will live less long (politically speaking of course) than Stalin ever did, but his tactics remain the same—total disdain for the rule of law; for the dignity of the individual; the ends no matter how cloudy  always justify any brutal means; and the cult of the almighty personality.

              John Mosier didn’t know it when he set out to write this book, but in his portrait of Joseph Stalin, he’s painted a vivid likeness Speaker Bill O’Brien.

            But don’t take my word for it, read Death Ride for yourself, especially the final three chapters when Stalin’s lies are exposed.

            As Steve Forbes says, you may take issue with some of Mosier’s interpretations, but they are explosive and well documented.  I, for example, always believe that Hitler could have won the war with Russia in the short term but without a change of occupation strategy, it would have been a short-lived victory.

            Hey, that’s kind of like O’Brien’s win as well…very short-lived.

            Mosier’s final point is most contentious of all, that Stalin, by the way he handled World War II, sowed the seeds for the decline of the Soviet Union.  He makes a powerful case in the final chapter.

            You don’t need to be a military history buff (or a Bill O’Brien victim—and all of us in a New Hampshire are indeed victims of Bill O’Brien as all Russians were victims of Stalin) to appreciate this book.


PREDICTION UPDATE--Democratic Senators? Let's Try 11

President Pierce?  Why is it that sounds vaguely familiar?

With the announcement that Democrat Matthew Houde (from District 5, the Lebanon-Hanover area) is not seeking re-election, no less than one-fourth of New Hampshire Senate incumbents, that's six of 24, have gone public with their intentions to step aside.

Houde is the first Democrat, but then, there are only five of them.

The Houde district, extremely Democratic leaning now, becomes vastly more so when the new redistricting plan kicks in (the Governor signed the plan).   You could almost say no Democrat (even one caught with a...stop...I have a joke here but I'm censoring myself...self censorship is after all the only valid form of censorship) could ever lose this new district.

Thus the question--who will be anointed as Houde's replacement?  Not counting two former senators who still presumably reside in the district, the very good Cliff Below and the very bad, extraordinarily bad Ho Ho Ho Burling, two names come to mind immediately, Lebanon Rep Susan Almy, who knows as much about taxes as anybody in the state (she told me so herself...that's true, but it's also true), and Hanover Rep David Pierce.

Susan Almy led me to believe she's won't be running for the Senate seat.  I'm careful not to say she definitely said she won't be running.  That's not quite what she said, and one never knows.   David Pierce, who is not nearly as fiscally conservative as I am (but then nobody is), is every bit my kind of social libertarian.  He'd be a vote against repeal of gay marriage in the Senate and against the other election law mischief Homosexual Hunter David Bates might try to pass next year--assuming Bates can get re-elected himself.  Bates finished fifth among Windham Republicans in the Salem-Windham district in 2010, and with the new redistricting plan, Windham only gets four Reps--yes that part of the plan is constitutional...but I digress. 

David Pierce would be in the perfect position to fight for his causes in the Senate, and as I look more and more at the Senate to be, it just could be President Pierce.  Yes, I'm now in the process of upping my prediction of Democrat gains in the Senate from three to six.  That means I had them going from five to eight seats, but now see them going from five to11 seats (and I still have the Prescott seat staying Republican--Prescott better be more prepared for the race than he was when he fumbled the Congressional redistricting plan presentation before the House committee, a shameful performance as even Bates admits) or it'll be a 12-12 split and bring on President Pierce.

Where have we heard that before--President Pierce?

Never mind.

Until I hear differently, let's welcome David Pierce to the Senate even if not as President.

Let's also welcome Donna Soucy aboard.  She will win the swing district 18 which consists of Manchester wards 5, 6, 7, 8 (my ward--no I will not run...unless some Pac comes forward with a $100,000 check...then count me in), 9, and Litchfield.  Tom DeBlois is leaving to run for an Executive Council seat which looks far less Republican-oriented if the Senate plan passes.

I had thought that former Alderman and Senator Betsi DeVries would be back, but apparently Party Chair Ray Buckley wants his former beard Soucy, and whatever Raybo wants, Raybo least in Democratic Party circles.  It'll be quite a step down for Soucy, from the $100,000 a year Senate chief of staff position (people are already questioning whether she resigned or was fired) to a $100 a year senator, but then Soucy doesn't really need the money.  At last check, she was still living a home with daddy C. Arthur.  A 40 year old live at home senator...get used to just can't make this stuff up. 

Maybe DeVries will run against RINO Toni Pappas for Hillsborough County Commissioner--DeVries is far more conservative than Pappas and would get my vote!

Litchfield Rep George Lambert says he's running for the District 18 seat, but with Manchester having 85 percent of the votes in the district, Lambert's chances are not good.  There's former Republican senator Andy Martel, but then he didn't exactly brighten Senate halls when he was there before (sorry Andy, but it's true) and there's still that thing about his son's address...I'm not one to pass the sins of the son on to the father, but you can be sure those running Soucy's campaign would never let us forget the young Martel's address.  Am I being diplomatic enough? 

Three of the Slimy Seven Snakes (those Republicans who broke their word and sided with the Speaker ahead of the city and Mayor Gatsas over redistricting...including former delegation Chair Will Infantine) do in fact reside in that Senate district, but does anyone think any of them would stand a chance against Soucy?  Not only is there the redistricting issue, but has anyone checked out Rep. Infantine's attendance record lately?  Hint--it's pretty bad, and if I know it, you can be sure Soucy's people know it.

So let's give District 18 to Donna "Did I Really Quit the $100,000 A Year Job?" Soucy.

DeBlois and Houde are joined by four others not running--Gary Lambert in District 13 (Nashua); James Forsythe (District 4) in the reconfigured area which now centers on Dover; Andy Sanborn (District 7, which no longer exists in recognizable form but is mostly the old district four centering on Laconia); and Raymond White (District 9), Bedford.

Start out by giving District 13 to Democrats; Betty Lasky will most likely be back.

Democrats think they have a chance with Nyquist in District 9.  True, it's somewhat less Republican, but Bedford still dominates population-wise and it's simply too Republican to call the seat in danger.  (I've done a rating system for all towns and city wards in the state; with 100 being all Republicans in voting in the past ten years and 0 being all Democratic, Bedford’s number is 64.86, about as high as it gets).  The question here is who will win the Republican primary.  Sanborn says he's moving to Bedford and running; long time Bedford Rep Ken Hawkins says he's running; and Peterborough is now in the district meaning Andy (some dare call him RINO) Peterson could win should the others split the Republican vote.  I'm keeping the seat in the Republican column but have no idea which Republican it'll be.

Nor do I have a clue who'll win the seats Sanborn and Forsythe are vacating.  In a normal year, new District 7 would tilt slightly Republican, but this may not be a normal year.  Let's give it to Democrats. 

I also see Democrats winning the second Nashua seat (District 12, incumbent Republican Jim Luther but recently held by either Democrats or...gasp...RINOs).  Although redistricting makes thre district more Republican overall, Obama coattails could be enough to bring a Democrat in here.

Certainly Democrats (either Watters or Sprague) will win the new Dover seat.

Having voted against Meredith's interests in the redistricting battle, District 2 Senator Jeanne Forrester becomes extremely vulnerable all of a sudden.  Let's put that seat in Democratic with the five they already have (assuming D'Allesandro hangs on in District 16--Manchester, Goffstown) and a pick-up of six, Democrats are suddenly up to 11...without even thinking about the Prescott (23) and Groen (6).  They both would have lost were it not for gerrymandered efforts to save them.

A 12-12 Senate with President David Pierce seems entirely possible.

For you keeping score, all it 2-4-5-7-10-12-13-15-18-20-21 for Democrats for a total of 11.  And that’s with the Prescott, Groen, and Bedford seats all remaining in Republican hands. 

The tide has turned, not in favor of Democrats necessarily but back in the direction a 50/50 House and Senate split.