Media Watch--It's 60 %, Not 2/3 Drew

Expect a full-blow Media Watch (by popular demand) later in the week, but it's necessary to correct an error immediately in Tueday's Union Leader.  (And I though I'd get through an entire week without having to correct the William Loeb Lane folks).

In his editorial in support of CACR 6 (with which I totally agree), Drew Cline notes that "it appears to have enough votes to pass teh Senate with the required two-thirds majority".

This is a Constitutional Amendment which would require a 3/5 vote by the Legislature to pass new or increaded taxes or fees.

Here's the problem.

Constitutional Amendments require not a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate but sixty percent (of the entire body, not merely those present and voting--normally all 24 senators are present) to get on the ballot (and then two-thirds is required by the people voting).  Two-thirds of 24 senators would be 16 votes, but 60 percent would be 15 votes (14.4 rounded up to 15).  It's only a one vote difference.  That could be critical but even more important is that editorial writers get Constitutional provisions correct. 

The editorial notes that the House passed the measure 256-117 earlier.  Had two-thirds been required, it would not have passed (two-thirds of 400 is 267; even if you account for three vacant seats, two-thirds of 397 is 265, more than the 256 votes received).

You're forgiven Drew (if indeed it wasn't W writing his own editorial).

Senate Hoists Itself On Its Own Petard

Only two months ago, sanctimonious New Hampshire Senators were decrying House Bill 2, the so-called trailer bill to the budget, pontificating how they could never go along with proposals which had not been vetted through the public hearing process.  Recall how President Peter Bragdon appeared on Channel 9 gloating about how the Kurk amendment on collective bargaining was dead on arrival in the Senate because it should be a separate bill, not part of HB2.

Similarly, the Senators didn't like my proposal to save a million wasted dollars by getting rid of the Cultural Affairs Department and consolidating its functions with the Department of State and the Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRA).  Oh no, no, no, you can't do that, Senators roared, not without a public hearing.

Apparently it depends whose ox is being gored.

I learned today, not at the State House but at City Hall in Manchester of all places, that as a special favor to one particular senator (the name is withheld to protect the guilty), the Senate Finance Committee voted 4-1 to recommend--without any public hearing at all--a change in a rather obscure department, the Board of Tax and Land Appeals.  (My sources say the one was the one Democrat on the Committee, Lou D'Allesandro).

Not only that, but there is virtually no financial impact (unlike the Kurk amendment or my Cultural Affairs Amendment), so the Senate will be caught in the worst kind of hypocrital snare if it votes for this proposal Wednesday.

Here's what the amendment does (and I make no comment on any of the provisions, simply the way they came forward with no public input):  the Board of Tax and Land Appeal is reduced from four to three members; from appointment by the Court to appointment by Governor and Council; from a term of five to three years; and the provision that one member must be a lawyer is done away with.

How many House members (even those of us on Finance) were aware of this bit of chicanery?

Certainly, I wouldn't have been had I not stopped by the Manchester assessor's office to get information on a totally different subject (the dreaded telephone pole tax EXEMPTION).  Has anyone in the lame stream media reported this bit of Senate chicanery? 

I'm just asking?

If the Senate insists on having House Bill 2 as pure as the driven snow, it's broken its own standards.  We'll see how this plays out in a committee of conference.  How about this compromise--the House accepts the tax and land appeal standards if the Senate agrees on the Kurk and Vaillancourt amendments?

Does this Senate gambit remind anyone of last year when Senator Betsi DeVries (since voted out of office) tried to hold the entire budget process hostage for the sake of the retirement package of a single constituent (only to have a Nashua House Democrat courageously shoot down the mighty senator)?

I'm just asking?

The Week In Polls--Are One In Four Americans Gay?

            The Week in Polls is a regular Monday feature (Tuesday this week) of this blog and of More Politically Alert which airs live Wednesday at 9 p.m. with rebroadcasts Thursday at 9 p.m., Sunday at noon, and Tuesday at 11 p.m. (always available at vimeo.com/channels/mpa).

             What percentage of the population is homosexual?  Most gay people I know say about one in 10 while homophobic people say the number is only two or three percent.  I split the difference and estimate about seven or eight percent, but Gallup has new data out this week which is simply astounding.

            On average, U.S. adults estimate that nearly 25 percent of Americans are gay.  That’s one in four, and frankly, it’s a percentage much higher than anything I’ve ever heard.  35 percent say more than 25 percent are gay.  More than half (52 percent) estimate that at least one in five Americans (20 percent) is gay. 

            Here’s how the question was worded, “Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are gay or lesbian?”

            In 2002, Gallup polled by separating gay men (21.4 percent) from lesbians (22.0 percent), so the number has actually gone up three points in a decade. 

            “Americans with lower incomes and less education give the highest estimates,” Gallup notes.  Also, American aged 18 to 29 give higher estimates, and women give far higher estimates than men.

            The numbers are available in detail at gallup.com

            While you’re there, check out another Gallup poll about what American consider morally acceptable vs. morally wrong.  Doctor assisted suicide is about the closest we get to a 50/50 split (it’s 45-48 on the wrong side).  Among the most acceptable are:  divorce 69-23; gambling 64-31 (Lou will be glad to read that); medical research from human stem cells 62-30; sex between an unmarried man and woman 60-36; gay and lesbian relations 56-39; and having a baby outside marriage 54-41.

            Among the most morally wrong are:  married men and women having an affair 7-91; polygamy 11-86; cloning humans 12-84; suicide 15-80; pornography 30-66 (yeah, sure!  How does it get to be a multi-billion industry?); cloning animals 32-62; and abortion 39-51.

            Three areas I depart from the majority who say it’s morally acceptable:  death penalty 65-28; buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur 56-39; and medical testing on animals 55-38.  All right, all right, everyone knows I have a soft spot for animals (greyhounds and poor little creatures in traps especially).

            Again, there’s lots more on gallup.com.

            But what about politics?

            It’s a much better week for Republicans than last week.  Rasmussen’s generic ballot is back to plus six for Republicans (43-37) after being down to plus two (42-40) last week.  Rasmussen has Obama losing to a generic Republican 45-43 (Obama led 45-44 a week ago) and support for repealing Obamacare is up to 51-41.

            Gallup, which had Obama up ten points in favorability a week ago, was down to one point (46-56) Monday and three (47-44) Tuesday.  In the Real Clear Politics average, Obama has fallen from nearly plus ten a week ago to plus 6.2 today (51.2-45.0).

            Rasmussen finds 35 percent believes America’s best days are ahead of us, but 47 percent think our best times have come and gone, hardly good news.

            CNN was out with a Republican horse race poll over the weekend which shows that one of my least favorite people (Rudy Giuliani) is ahead of Romney 16-15 with Palin third at 13 %.  My man Ron Paul is fourth at 12 %, ahead of Herman Cain (wow!) 10 %, Gingrich 8, Bachmann 7, Pawlenty 5, Santorum 2, Huntsman and Johnson 1.

            Without Giuliani, Romney leads Palin 19-15 followed by Ron Paul at 13, Cain and Gingrich 11, Bachmann 7, Pawlenty 5, Huntsman 3, Santorum and Johnson 2.

            Without either Giuliani or Palin, Ron Paul vaults into second place, trailing Romney 21-15 with Cain at 13, Gingrich 12, Bachmann 9, Pawlenty 5 (he’s at 5 no matter how you slice it yet punditry still rates him a favorite), Huntsman and Santorum 3, Johnson 2.

            Gallup has more bad news for the Newtster.  His intensity rating among Republican voters (calculated by subtracting those strongly unfavorable from those strongly favorable) to 6 (it was 19 in early April).  Only Huntsman at 5 and Johnson at 4 are lower.  The leader?   Believe it or not, it’s Cain at 25 and Bachman 21.  Palin, Pawlenty, Santorum and Romney are in the 14-16 range.  (Ron Paul only gets a 10).

            Overall, only 61 percent of Republican view Gingrich as somewhat favorably while 32 percent rank him unfavorably (count me among the 32).

To Honor The Dead This Memorial Day, Lets Stop These Senseless Wars

I never fail to be moved when a member of the New Hampshire House stands up at the end of the day to honor a member of his or her district who has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

What a tragedy that any young man or woman should give his or her life in these wars which are not in American's vital interest.  But then, that's the case with most wars, and that's a thought we all need to ponder this Memorial Day weekend.

Yes, we are squandering our national economic treasure, a small price to pay compared to the lives lost.

I am a proud American and have often defended this county in Europe against those who point out our faults.  Anit-American sentiment can be so powerful that some Americans pretend to be Canadians to avoid the heat (it's true, and I would never think of doing that).

However, no American can deny the basic fact that while Europeans, engaged in an unending series of wars from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries, have enjoyed more or less constant peace for 66 years (since 1945), the United States has been involved in one senseless war after another--Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, Iraq, Afghanistan (even the most senseless of all--that little excursion into Grenada).

As a student of European history, I focused more on the diplomatic side rather than fighting the battles, but there was plenty of both from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 ending the 30 Years War to the wars of Louis XIV (at least four of them) to those of Frederick the Great, the Seven Years War, Pitts' wars, Napoleon's wars, the Wars of Italian and especially German unification, the Crimean War, more or less constant wars involving Russia and the Turks, thee  "little" Balkan Wars leading up to the two wars so big that they merited numbers WWI and WWII.

Since 1945, except for localized wars (Bosnia, Russian provinces, and Soviet excursions into East German in 1951, Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968), Europe has known peace.

Who would have thought that the age-old animosity between French and Germans would end so suddenly.  Thanks in large part to Konrad Adenauer and Charles DeGaulle, it ended.

While Europe has enjoyed peace and prosperity, a time to rebuilt after the devastation of World War II, the United States has been adventuring around the world.  The legacy, sadly, is yet another speech by a member of the New Hampshire House marking the passing of another dead American, killed in a part of the world he prob ably never knew about when he sent there.

Honor Memorial Day by pledging to support candidates who will not get us into more senseless wars.

Of course, Ron Paul comes to mind immediately, but if you can't bring yourself to joining two dozen New Hampshire Reps who are aboard with Ron Paul, at least pick a candidate who in not into sending Americans to die in conflict which will ony produce blowback and more conflicts and death in a terrible cycle that the Europeans have come to avoid.

No never, Rudy Giuliani.  Yes indeed, Ron Paul.

Happy Memorial Day.

Stop these senseless wars.

Is Democrat Office Staff Unionized? Is The Pope Protestant?

With Democrats unanimous in their opposition to right to work legislation, with Democrats united against any serious pension reforms which would the system solvent at the expense of bloated unions, with Democrats slavishly devoted to big labor at every step along the way, can I possibly be the only person who has wondered--

Is the Raymond Charles Buckley/Kathleen Sullivan generation of paid Democrat staffers, an ever-expanding lot it would seem  (how much did that help in the 2010 elections), is the entire crew unionized with the full plate of pension benefits and a  generous health package ($25,000 a year for a family plan)?

I'm just asking.  One would think that if Democrats are to avoid the hypocrisy of pushing others to do something which they themselves fail to do, the answer would be, "Mais, oui.  But of course, Democrat personnel are unionized!"

Only in your dreams.

Prove me wrong but let me assert my firm belief that Buckley/Sullivan have not offered to unionize their minions.

It wouldn't be the first time that Democrats are caught in a web of hypocrisy.

Remember the godfather of the Democrat party, Ted Kennedy who spent half a century crying for more government spending and taxation to help poor people.

Yes, this would be the same Ted Kennedy who, to avoid Massachusetts taxes when his beloved mother Rose went to that great compound in the sky, pulled all the strings he could to probate her estate not in her home Bay State but rather in Florida where the tax situation was...how you say...kinder to the rich.

Until Buckley/Sullivan decide to unionize their ranks (that would include Rep. Michael Brunelle--I've promised myself to avoid using that euphemism which so many in Manchester came to love--and Harrell The Humorless Hack--I've made n such promise for him), lets all turn a deaf ear to their pleas for unions.

Put your money where your mouth is Democrats.  Stop asking those in the public domain to do what you apparently are unwilling to do in the private domain.

Happy Memorial Day, all you non-unionized Democrat Hacks and to everyone else as well.