We Are The Freest In The Land

A fellow Rep emailed me this afternoon noting that New Hampshire is tied as the freest state in the country.  Tied with what other state?  It's South Dakota.  (Must be that George McGovern influence.  New Hampshire undoubtedly would have been way ahead of South Dakota had it not been for four years of Democrat rule.  Check back with us next year!

 ABC News ran the story this way, "Live free or die?  New Hampshire may be on to something, according to researchers at George Mason University's Mercatus Center.  They used a variety of statistics to rank the 50 states for their just-published report on which states are the freest--and least free--from taxes and government regulation."

Not surprisingly, New York and New Jersey are least free.  Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware are also among the worst.  Hey, at least my native state of Vermont is not among the very worst.  Along with Maine, it's a lighter shade of dark blue, but still leaves most of the Northeast as terrible.

Hey, anyone think it's mere conicident that the least free states are the very ones which also vote for the most Democrats?  My guess is that freedom equates with Republican and capitalist ideals which made this a great country (back in the 19th century--Democrats, like Grover Cleveland, were far from the left wing socialist loonies they are today).  Obamaism equates to lack of freedom, to economic and social enslavement.  Just look at the map...if it reproduces here.

"The professors who authored the study believe that this freedom as they define it makes a lot of difference to the happiness and well-being of the governed," ABC News reports. 

It's a lengthy report.  Google "new Hampshire south Dakota" and you'll get it.

Looks like we're freer than Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada which dare challenge us for the right to vote first for President.  We should have a new motto, "Let the freest vote first!"

(Mercatus Center at George Mason University/ABC News)

Union Leader Isn't Enough; Fahey Errs On NPR

            No Knoy for Me—First a confession or a boast (depending on which side of the political spectrum you’re on), it should come as no surprise that I’m not an NPR kind of guy.  I’ll take Dr. Michael Savage and Howie Carr (and even Glen Beck, albeit in very small doses) to the dulcet, some would say soporific, tones served up by NPR every day.  I couldn’t even tell you what frequency it is on the radio dial and when fellow Reps tell me they heard me on NPR (Josh Rogers occasionally comes round with mike in hand), my response is always, “Oh really.”

            I’ve never been into NPR even when I lived in Berlin, Germany in 1992-93 and about the only sources I could get for English news were the BBC (also not my cup of tea) and NPR on Armed Services Radio.  Had it not been for a cultural center known as Amerika Haus (with a feed from American television), I would have been reduced to hearing the biased NRP bring in news of Clinton’s victory.

            It was so bad I had a joke with my German friends who would ask, “So did you listen to All Boring Things Considered today?”

            “No,” I usually responded, “I missed All Boring Things Considered.”  I also missed Evening Edition or whatever they called the boring hour at the other end of the day.

            Although I’ve been involved in several controversial issues—newsworthy ones—in 15 years as a State Rep, and although most people acknowledge I’m capable of stringing coherent thoughts together, my disdain of NPR is apparently mutual.  I’ve never been on the Laura Knoy Sleeper Hour.  In fact, I was invited to be on once, but the elitists at the station called the day before the show, saying I’d been dropped because the person I was scheduled to debate refused to go on if I was there.  “Fine,” I said.  “I’ll go on without him.”

            It didn’t work that way.  These bastions of so-called liberalism and freedom of speech decided to censor me because the other guest was narrow-minded enough not to dare debate me (the issue was gay marriage but it could have been any number of issues from my opposition to the death penalty or Channel 11 funding to my support for reducing taxing and spending, all of which have eluded Laura's bookers).

            Such is my experience with NPR both in Germany and in New Hampshire.

            Laura Knoy is not on my radar screen.  I'd even endure the disgraced former Speaker of the Massachusetts House (Finneran the Felon is what Howie Carr calls him) to avoid spending time with the NRR folks.  Where's Imus when you need him?

            While I'm not close with Liberal Laura, apparently my friend and fellow State Rep Irene Messier (whom I drive to Concord) is.  I arrived at Irene’s house early Wednesday morning (I had an “emergency” Hillsborough County executive committee meeting to attend--trying to produce a budget without increasing taxes, something NPR would never be interested in).  Irene wasn’t quite ready, so I waited in the kitchen, and guess what the Messier radio was tuned to?

            You’re way ahead of me…Liberal Laura’s take on the issues of the day.  That’s a long-winded introduction to the gist of this article.

 Score one for Laura.  She had on Ron Paul.  Go, Ron, Go.

             Fahey Errs Again—Apparently not content to spread his misinformation merely to Union Leader readers, Tom Fahey, the state’s worst reporter by far, was a guest of Liberal Laura.  They were talking about the budget, and in the first minute I was listening, Fahey came out with a whopper of an error.

            If the Senate and House can’t reach agreement by July 1, he said as if he knew what he was talking about, spending will continue at last year’s rate and since Republicans plan to spend less the coming year, deadlock would be good for Democrats like Governor John Lynch who want to spend more.

            You can’t make this stuff up.  That’s what Fahey, the Union Leader’s pride and joy, was telling Liberal Laura.  One might expect such an error from a rookie reporter, but Fahey can't plead ignorance of the sysem as an excuse--he's been around--what?--nearly a decade.   Before I could scream, “What the hell are you talking about?” into the Messier radio, AP’s Norma Love, by far the best reporter in the state, corrected Fahey (in far more diplomatic language than I would have).

            Norma pointed out that what Fahey said was in fact not true.  (She did NOT say, "No Tom, you're wrong as usual", that would hardly have been acceptable on NPR...it might have awakened a few people from their stupor and we wouldn't want alert listeners, now would we?)

            Should no agreement be reached by July 1, Norma diplomatically corrected her colleague, the Senate and House would have to agree on a continuing resolution, most likely at a much lower level of spending.

            Thank the journalism gods for Norma Love.  Only her presence prevented NPR listeners from being misled by the dean of Union Leader misreporting Tom Fahey.

            Spending will most assuredly not continue at the same overblown rate as last year.   If I had my way, we’d shut government down completely if we can’t reach an agreement prior to July 1 (but I'm only one of 400), and I suspect Norma Love is correct.  A continuing resolution would be agreed to (that’s what happened back in 2003 when Craig Benson was governor), maybe at 70 percent of last year's funding level (70% is in fact a number I heard today).

            The point is most likely a moot one.  House and Senate budget conferees have already reached a compromise on revenues (they split the difference on the two positions, rather wisely I would think).  They are meeting Sunday and all next week, and it doesn’t seem to me, they’re all that far apart.

            We could very well have a budget not only by June 30 but by June 23.  Should the governor be misguided enough to veto the budget, he will most likely be overridden by both Houses.

            Just think what position Lynch is in.  Last term, he created a crisis by getting his Democrat House and Senate majority to overstate revenues by a whopping $300 million.  He tried to pull the same stunt this year, but even House and Senate Democrats agreed he was overstating revenues by $200 million to $250 million, depending on which day they looked at the revenue picture.

            Lynch has made himself totally irrelevant, a fact you’re not likely to hear from Liberal Laura, and who knows what you’re likely to hear from Fahey.  It really doesn’t matter what he writes or says because any sentient human being has long since realized that with so many errors to his name, Fahey cannot be trusted on anything…whether reporting the facts or opining.

            Associated Press should give Norma Love a promotion and a raise, no matter what she’s making.

            As for the Union Leader, it should long ago have fired Fahey.  At least when Gary Rayno makes mistakes, they are of the innocuous (and thereby forgivable) nature.

            We can only wonder if Channel 11 Richard the Snide will have Norma correcting Fahey this week on that bit of theater.  I just can’t wait…but then there’s the matter of the Anthonys to occupy our time…Casey Anthony and Anthony Weiner…how can we consider such a trivial matter as a budget when we’ve got the Woody Weiner and the child killer (allegedly) to devote all our time to. 

            Yes, I know…sarcasm is the lowest form of humor.   

Bills Speeded Onto Lynch's Desk

Talk about speeding up the legislative process!

More than a dozen bills, including the photo ID for voting bill, which passed the House and Senate Wednesday are already on their way to Governor John Lynch's desk.  In fact, they should be there by the time I finsh writing this, and you read it.

That means that Lynch will have only until Wednesday to sign or veto the bills (or they will become law without his signature).  This is inside baseball stuff, but it might be significant.  The Governor has five days to deal with a bill--Sundays and holidays don't count, but Saturdays do.

Some may recall that last year, Democrats who controlled the House and Senate were in no hurry to get the gay marriage bill on to the desk of John Lynch who had not made up his mind about signing it (Oh sure, in retrospect, he likes to take credit for gay marriage, but he was a bitter opponent until the very end of the process; the passed bill sat literally for weeks on the desk of Senate President Sylvia Larsen while Lynch stuck his finger in the air to make up his mind).

In a complicated process, bills can be held up for days enroute to the Governor's office.  They must go to the Secretary of State and the Speaker and Senate President's office to be signed then have to be enrolled and go back to the Secretary of State, Speaker, and Senate President (someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but you get the gist--it's a cumbersome process).

Less than an hour ago, I was upstairs in the State House.  Two Reps are needed to convene a session to accept enrolled bills; I was enlisted for the purpose, and lo and behold, less than 20 minutes later, I was in the Secretary of State's office when Rep. Al Baldassaro walked the bills in.  They'd already been signed in the Speaker's and Senate President's office.  Secretary of State Bill Gardner signed them (and applied the seal) while I was there, and they are off to the Governor.

It's amazing how fast (or how slowly) this process can work, depending on how fast (or how slowly) those in leadership want it to work.

Unless I'm wrong, the clock is ticking and Lynch will have only until Wednesday to veto any of these bills, perhaps signficant on the photo ID bill because while it passed the Hose by a veto proof margin, it was one vote short in the Senate...but then as I reported here yesterday, Rasmussen has a new poll showing that Americans favor photo ID for voting by more than a three to one margin. 

No wonder the  Speaker and Senate President acted with alacrity to get this bill to the Governor.  What's the motto?  Strike while the iron is hot?

This iron is hot, and Republican leadership is clearly in the striking mode today.

Of course as we've learned with the right to work bill, it's the Speaker and Senate President who decide when to bring up a vote on any vetoed bill.  It could be next week...or next month...or some time this fall.   That's nothing new; it's always been the procedure (although Democrats don't like to admit it, it was the procedure when Larsen and Norelli were in power--how quickly they forget the game they played with bills, and it's the procedure now that Republicans are in power).

Will Any Democrats Dare Confront Their DINO Governor?

            It was 1965 (how time does fly when you’re having fun) when as a high school freshman taking Civics, I learned the term log rolling.

            It’s a perfectly legal and perfectly ethical technique used by legislators who are willing to compromise on an issue of dubitable importance to get a colleague to support their position on another issue of greater importance.

            Put more bluntly, log rolling is trading your vote in support of another person’s vote.

            It’s time for the 90 percent or more of House Democrats who are against expansion of the death penalty to play a little hardball and roll a few logs to convince their “angel of death” governor to veto the death penalty expansion bill which the House passed by less than a veto proof margin of 211-153 yesterday.

            Here’s how it might work.

            We all know that Governor Lynch and Republican House leadership are locked in a death struggle over the right to work bill.

            Even as Speaker O’Brien tries to convince a handful of Republican to come on board and give him the two-thirds necessary to override Lynch’s veto, one hundred percent of Democrats are on record against right to work.

            But why wouldn’t a daring Democrat or five or ten send word out to the governor that just as he desperately wants certain things (to kill right to work), 90 percent of his party wants to kill the death penalty expansion (HB 147).  How you say…Governor if you aren't comfortable in vetoing HB 147, you may find eight or ten of us not as comfortable on right to work.

            Don’t tell me logrolling doesn’t exist.

            My sources tell me that promises were made when Republicans passed the education funding amendment earlier this year.

            I know, I know, watching the sausage being made is never pleasant, but Hanover Democrat David Pierce who spoke eloquently against the death penalty expansion would be in a prime position to suggest to Governor Lynch that often in politics, one hand washes the other; you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours; or more bluntly put, you do me a favor, I’ll do you a favor.

            Come to think of it, such “tactics” (don’t we all hate that word “coercion”?) could also be used by good Republicans like Derry’s Pat Dowling who has sided with Democrats on right to work but also spoke against the death penalty bill.]

            “Oh, Governor, ol' buddy, ol pal,” she might say the next time the Oval Office (whoops, that’s in DC—we call it the Corner Office here) calls, “I might need to see you veto the death penalty expansion bill in order to maintain a comfort level in helping you avoid having your right to work veto overturned.”

            Yes, both Rep. Pierce and Rep. Dowling will receive this blog.

            For that matter, Lancaster Rep Evelyn Merrick has worked harder than anybody on the planet to get medical marijuana passed.  Nearly all her Democratic colleagues agree with her, but after she met all of DINO Lynch’s objections last year, he vetoed her bill.

             She’s redoubled her efforts to get a different version passed this year.  Despite a nearly three to one Republican advantage in the House, Rep Merrick got it passed overwhelmingly, but we hear it’s tabled in the Senate because of DINO Lynch’s veto threat.

            “What’s that Governor?” I would ask were I Rep Merrick, “You want to make sure my vote of right to work is still solid?  You’ve heard that I might be wavering?  Well to tell you the truth governor, I’d be much more comfortable on right to work if I knew you would stop holding medical marijuana hostage.  Oh I know…hostage is such a harsh word.  Let’s just say…I’d be more comfortable if I knew you’d sign the medical marijuana bill as you promised once we’ve ironed out all the problems.  You agree we’ve ironed out all those problems, don’t you?”   

             The conversation would continue.

             “What?  What’s that you say, Governor?  Of course that’s not a threat.  But you know medical marijuana means as much to me as right to work does to you.  Probably more.”

              Of course, Rep. Pierce or Dowling or Rep. Merrick would have to be willing to back up what they say.  It’s not everyone that is up to a game of chicken, but then it’s not often that you have such a golden opportunity to play the game.  It’s not often that stakes are as high as they are with right to work…and the death penalty expansion…and medical marijuana.

              To repeat, log rolling is (or at least…was) taught to freshmen Civics students.  Certainly it’s a concept which could be easily understood by a man who has the proud distinction of becoming the first human being in New Hampshire history to be elected to four successive two year terms for that position in the Corner Office.

            Now that I’ve posted this, there’s really no need for me to make a dozen or two calls, now is there?

            Once planted, a seed will certainly sprout, especially with the rain and in the soil we have today.

            Come on little seed, reach to the sky.  You can do it.

For history buffs...and just to point out how almost all Democrats are viscerally opposed to the death penalty, riddle me this, oh great pornographer.  When the House and Senate passed the death penalty repeal on to have it vetoed by the Angel of Death Jeanne Shaheen, who was the only House Democrat to oppse repeal?  

Hint--he's no longer a Representative. 

Hint number two--He lived (and presumably still lives) in my ward, Manchester Ward 8.

Hint number three--While he favored the death penalty, his position on gay marriage was...and is... how you say...more progressive.

Hint number four--Charlie boy. 

Senate Accepts Photo ID Bill; 75% Want It

Rasmussen has released a new poll showing that 75 % of Americans favor requiring a photo ID to vote.  By serendipity, the poll comes a day after the New Hampshire Senate (somewhat surprisingly in my humble opinion) concurred with the House version of a photo ID for voting bill.

First the Rasmussen numbers because support is overwhelming, and unlike New Hampshire (where almost all elected Democrats opposed photo ID), it crosses party lines.

"75 percent of likely U.S. voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver's license before being allowed to vote.  Just 18 percent disagree."

In other words, the margin is more than four to one!

Even those who charge that Rasmussen's polls tilt slightly toward Republican positions (I disagree with the charge) cannot argue with numbers of such magnitude.

85 % of Republicans favor photo ID; 77 % of non-affiliated voters support it; even 63 % of Democrats (at least outside the New Hampshire House and Senate!) also support it.

"Support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups," Rasmussen writes.

He adds, "By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think that letting ineligible people vote is a bigger problem than preventing legitimate voters from casting a ballot."

Wow!

Only one percent say they have ever been denied the right to vote.

If John Lynch's "people" are looking at these numbers (certainly at least one Democrat passes these bloggings on to His Excellency), all thoughts of a veto of the photo ID bill should fly out the window.

I had assumed the Senate would ask for a committee of conference on the photo ID bill, but apparently the House dug in its heels.  From a fiscal point of view (after all, I looked at it as a member of Finance), the House plan was much less costly than the Senate version, perhaps by a five to one margin.

Secretary of State Bill Gardner explained to me how he'd brought in computer experts to talk with both House and Senate members.  Remember, rather than use provision voting for those without IDs, Senators wanted to buy a special camera for each polling place to create instant IDs for those who showed up without them.  The high end model would have cost upwards of a million dollars, and you still would have been left with the costs of people in cities (every ward) and towns (including the very smallest) having to designate (and pay) someone to man the camera. 

Not only that, but since some degree of skill is required to produce an ID, clearly there would have been problems with a town the size of Ellsworth or Rumney (or name your choice here) getting qualified people to man the cameras.

The Senate was wise to concur with the House position; I didn't think it would happen, but I was convinced that ultimately, the House position (the fiscally prudent one) would have prevailed in a committee of conference. 

Is there any truth to the rumor that the Senate concurred because word was leaked that a Rep with initials SV would have been named to the committee of conference?  (Just joking of course--there is no Rep. Stanley Vance).

The House speech explaining the numbers (from an SV) is currently available on the manchestertv23 show More Politically Alert which ran Wednesday night and reairs Thursday at 9 p.m., Sunday at noon, and Tuesday at 11 p.m. (and is already up at vimeo.com/channels/mpa). 

 What a fun show it was!  The Bruins went from up 1-0 to 2-0 to 3-0 during the course of the show, and I got to ban someone who broke the rules about calling only on the topic du jour (Weiner’s Weiner) as opposed to leveling an ad hominem attack on the host for his Exorcist and Alfred E. Newman graphics.   Banning is such great fun, a rare opportunity not to be missed.