How The Left And Right Think

Once again our friends over at Blue Hampshire proved how they view the world differently from everyone else.

In an article posted HERE the posted 2 charts showing the average per person expenditure by state government broken down by state.  The first chart left the states off and they asked you to guess where NH fell in compared to other states.

To cut through the chase here is the 2nd chart with the state names included:

As you can see NH came in as the 3rd lowest spending an average of $2,488 which Blue Hampshire also points out is 30% percent below the national average of $3,557 per person.

Now take a few minutes and really think to yourself what these numbers mean.  Ask yourself whether or not you think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

First thing a thinking person says is where do these numbers come from.  Lucky for us BH provides links at the bottom.  Where we can agree is the 2009 population in NH is 1,324,575.

For us to have a per person spending of just $2,488 the state budget would have to be just $3,295,542,600.

If the last state budget was $11.5 Billion that would mean spending would have had to have jumped from $3.2 billion in '09 to $8.3 billion for '10 in which case Democrats would have serious explaining to do for why they increased spending so much.  However using the link they provide you see on page 6 that the state spending in 2009 was $4,978,000,000 which comes out to be $3,758.19 per person.

But this is Blue Hampshire we're talking about so I'm willing to take their numbers with a grain of salt from the start.

Before continuing I'd like to point out a comment from Blue Hampshire's article:

Funny how you never see charts (4.00 / 3)

like this from the right-wing, er, "non-partisan" think tanks in this state.

-Dean Barker

Sorry to prove you wrong Dean but I am posting this chart and clearly drawing a very different conclusion then you and your friends.

But I digress, when I look at that chart I see it as a good thing.  NH can provide service to all it's citizens and do so for far less then most of the rest of the country.  We have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, our unemployment rates are below average for the rest of the country, our educational scores are above average.  And we are able to do all this for far less then other states.

Ah, but of course our left wing friends don't see things this way.

the other New England states (4.00 / 2)

think more of their people. I've been saying for years that NH provides a level of services that would cause a third world country to blush.

NH taking a back seat to Mississippi - there's something to be proud of.

---

by: susanthe

The level of services?  What services exactly are we missing in NH?  This statement is the sum of all of the differences between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats look at states where people rely heavy on government and say see how we help so many people, meanwhile Conservatives such as myself look at charts like this and say see how few people actually need government services and see it as a GOOD thing.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

Let's look at a few more comments:

This can't possibly be true... (0.00 / 0)

Tens of Millions of campaign time dollars were spent, dozens of editorials in the UL and Fosters were published and endless press releases and speeches by John Sununu ALL saying that NH's budget was exploding under the Democrats.

Could it really be that they were ALL lying?

Yup.

"If you are going to be in politics, you have to be a soldier in the battlefield."

                    Hubert H. Humphrey

---

by: Ray Buckley

Now here's a perfect example of left wing misdirection.  If a job takes $100 to be done right then there is no reason to spend $200 on it even if everyone else is.

That said, I also refer back to my early comment questioning where these numbers came from in the first place.  If you use the link they provide to the National Association of State Budget Officers found HERE and jump to page 6 you can see that the state's spending total jumped from $4,807,000,000 in 2008 to $4,978,000,000 in 2009 and $5,465,000,000 in 2010.  That's an increase of 658,000,000 in just 2 years or an increase of 14% at a time when our economy was in the toilet.  How many of you saw household incomes increase 14% in the past 2 years?

Moving on...

State Spending in the Light of Data (4.00 / 6)

I believe the fact that we are already close to the bone is the very reason (and our lack of existing tax base)that NH was chosen as the target for de-constructing government. This is not really about living within our means...it is about furthering a political agenda that believes the only individual rights matter and the collective good truly is irrelevant.

---

by: kcollman

Read that last line slowly folks. 

Perhaps I'm a bit off but when I read the bill of rights I do not see anything about a collective but I do see rights granted to individuals.

"... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

What would he say about Mr. Jefferson's views?  Is he too a deconstructionist seeking to further a political agenda?

Once again this is a perfect example of how both sides think and see things differently.

Frank Guinta, Blue Hampshire And The Constitution

I read an article recently on Blue Hampshire that I haven't been able to get out of my mind because it exposes the perfect example of the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

The article "Frank Guinta and the Crackpot Fringe" which is nothing more then a slim on facts hit peice makes this statement:

For folks who make such a big deal about their fealty to the U.S. Constitution, the tea party crowd sure isn't hesitant about seeking to change the parts they don't like.

Read that line a few times and really let it sink in what is being said there.

Have you read it two or three times?  Good, now consider that the left too has parts they dislike about the constitution.  The 2nd amendment comes quickly to mind.

Being as it's fair to say that both parties agree the Constitution isn't perfect (a claim Democrats have made many many times publicly), which would you rather have in power, a party that admits what they dislike about it and seeks to change it through the correct legal means of an amendment or a party that ignores the parts they dislike and puts activist judges in power who treat it as a "living document" that needs to be reinterpreted over time?

If we left everything untouched in the Constitution from the day it was put into affect we wouldn't have repealed the 18th ammendment and alcohol would still be illegal.

When you stop and really think about what they are saying here I'm not sure if it exposes their ignorance or if it just exposes how they play by a whole different set of rules.

But going back to their article, what I find even more telling is that they are so desperate to defend Carol Shea Porter that they write this attack piece against Frank Guinta which is based on hollow arguments.

First they point out that there is a group calling for the repeal of the 17th amendment, that's the amendment that allows Senators to be directly elected by the people.  If you drill into their link you see Frank never actually came out in support of the idea.  His answer was "There are pros and cons. We need to weigh this one very carefully."  That says to me that he's willing to listen to the argument even if he doesn't support it.  Is that a bad thing?  I guess if you support Carol and her willingness to have people arrested and tossed out of meetings for saying things she dislikes then you would see it as bad.

Then they point out the 14th amendment which many Republicans do feel it is time to revisit and revise, that's the amendment that grants anyone born here citizenship.

They quote the following from the Union Leader about Frank Guinta's stance:

Guinta would also take a hard line on illegal immigrants with American-born children. If the parents go, the kids are going to have to go with their parents," he said. "The responsibility of a parent at that point is to keep their family intact. If you're breaking the law and you are deported, you bring your family back to your home country.

Instead of really thinking about this and debating it they instantly turn against Frank and attack saying he's against the Constitution.

For starters the 14th amendment did not become law until 1868.  The 17th in 1913.

But in the case of immigrants let's consider this deeper.  If a couple comes here illegally they have already broken our laws, if during that time they have a child should they be rewarded for simply being here at the time of the birth?

One of a few situations could come from this given the current Constitutional clause.

1) We reward them even though they break our laws and allow them to stay here and raise their baby with full rights as a US citizen.

2) We deport them without the baby since it is now a US citizen.  This places the burden on Americans to pay for and raise the child without parents.

3) We deport them with the child.  This could become a problem if the parents do not wish to take that child back because now the child is consider a US citizen.  We cannot force a citizen out of the country even if it's parents are illegal and do not belong here.

None of the above situations are ideal which is why we should be having discussions on whether or not the 14th amendment needs to be repealed or altered.  Thinking people see and understand this.

One Lane Democratic Thinking Spend Spend Spend

I never fail to get a laugh out of how Democrats expect solutions but they walk into problems with the idea that only more government will solve the problem, even if the problem is government created in the first place.

A perfect example is the "question" to all candidates running for federal office posted on Blue Hampshire which you can read in full HERE.  Now that we're seeing what many predicted, that the stimulus package would create a temporary bubble in the economy which once the money dried up would pop leaving us worse off then we were before.  Blue Hampshire's Mike Hoefer points to a couple "economic thinkers" who all point out that we're seeing the signs of a "Double Dip Recession" but all draw the same wrong conclusion, that we must spend more which leads us to the question Mike posts for candidates seeking federal offices:

"What new spending or stimulus programs will you sponsor, champion, work for if we elect you to the office you seek? Please note, 'Create Jobs' without an associated spending program is not an acceptable answer."

In other words if the government isn't spending then you couldn't possibly find a way to "create jobs" in the minds of Democrats.

Here's an idea, instead of taking money from the businesses that actually hire people and create the jobs and filtering it through government having much of it line the pockets of buerocrats who do nothing to help the economy then giving handouts with whatever is left to people who also do nothing to help the economy, why not actually let businesses keep that money.  If we cut government spending and were able to lower taxes businesses would have more money to invest in new development and creating new jobs.  Those who earn the money in the first place could use that money to invest in future growth.

Democrats don't seem to understand that the rich guy is the same one who uses that money to invest in a start up company, perhaps even one of those "green" companies they keep saying we need more of.  If you take the money away from the investor to create temporary jobs paving highways for the 3rd or 4th time you do not create jobs that last.  You create what we saw already with the first stimulus plan, a bubble that pops once the money dries up.

The best response I can give to Blue Hampshire who quote the likes of Paul Krugman to justify their out of control spending habits is to quote from an article from CNN Money.

Money.Cnn.Com writes:

Of all the highlights of Allan Meltzer's half-century as a distinguished monetarist -- advising Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, producing celebrated books on John Maynard Keynes and the history of the Federal Reserve -- none proved more memorable than a crisis session at 10 Downing Street in mid-1980.

A group of 346 noted economists had just written a scathing open letter to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, predicting that her tough fiscal policies would "deepen the depression, erode the industrial base, and threaten social stability." Thatcher wanted to make absolutely certain her unpopular attack on huge deficits and rampant spending, in the face of high unemployment and a weak economy, was the right one.

So Thatcher summoned Meltzer, along with a group of trusted advisors, to explain why the experts were wrong. Even leaders of her own party advised Thatcher to make what they called a 'U-Turn,' and enact a big spending program to pull Britain out of recession. "Our job was to explain why lower deficits and spending discipline were the key to recovery," recalls Meltzer.

Thatcher was regally unamused by arcane jargon. "Being right on the economics wasn't enough," intones Meltzer. "She made it clear that our job was to explain it so she could understand it. If we didn't, she made it clear we were wasting her time. She'd say, 'You're not telling me what I need to know.'"

Thatcher stuck with draconian policies, invoking the battle chant "The Lady's Not for Turning." She launched Britain on years of balanced budgets, modest spending increases, falling joblessness, and extraordinary economic growth.

...

Meltzer is right, and most of the "experts" -- from Paul Krugman to Ben Bernanke -- are wrong. The best stimulus is a solid, credible plan to radically reduce government spending, starting right now.

Look Deeper At The Polls Blue Hampshire Pushes

Blue Hampshire is at it again, I love reading them to see the new attempt Democrats are putting out to spin things in their own favor.  The most recent spin comes in the form of an article titled "What's the only thing worse then a Palin endorsement". 

In the article they point to an NBC poll (you can see the poll in full HERE) which asked the question how they would feel if a candidate were endorsed by Sarah Palin to which the responses were:
8% Enthusiastic
17% Comfortable
15% Some Reservations
37% Very Uncomfortable

Blue Hampshire and the main NBC article they link to of course leave off that the poll shows 21% responded it makes no difference.

Compare that with the responses on candidates endorsed by Obama and keep in mind the margin of error is listed at + or - 3.10%

10% Enthusiastic
26% Comfortable
13% Some Reservations
30% Very Uncomfortable
20% No Difference

So when you really stop and think about it, their best guy isn't doing much better then a renegade who the media is trying to paint out as the next leader of the Republican party.

But even so this implies things are going better for Democrats.  It isn't until you dive deeper into the results that Blue Hampshire and NBC don't discuss that you realize how bad things really are for the Democrats right now.

To the question, is the country headed in the right track or wrong track? 29% right track to 62% wrong track.  Compare that to Sept 2006 when Democrats began winning heavily over Republicans in elections when polls showed 31% right track to 54% wrong track.

Do you approve of the job Obama is doing as president?  45% approve to 48% disapprove.  This marks the first time since he was elected that his disapproval rating has passed his approval and is a huge drop from his high of 60% approve to 26% disapprove.

Do you approve of Obama's handing of the economy?  46% approve to 50% disapprove.

Which would you prefer of the outcome of this years elections? Republican controlled congress 45%, Democrat controlled congress 43%, not sure 12%

Do you see your vote as a way to send a signal to Obama?  Signal in support 27%, signal of opposition 32%, no signal at all 39%, not sure 2%.  Compare this to the results from Jun 2006, 21% support, 38% oppose and 39% no signal.

Should your representative in congress be relected?  35% yes, 57% no, 8% not sure.

Of those who supported Republican control the top 3 priorities were in order:
Reduce government spending - 39%
Repeal new health care legislation - 28%
Keep taxes down - 17%

Compare that with the top 3 priorities of those who support Democrats:
Look out for the working people - 45%
Support policies of Barack Obama - 29% (interesting they leave this as such a generic choice)
Support new health care legislation - 19%

A few other interesting responses in the poll are:

Supports repealing the health care legislation:
26% enthusiastic
21% comfortable
15% some reservations
25% very uncomfortable
10% makes no difference
3% not sure
47% support repealing it and only 40% were against.

Supports cutting federal spending:
34% enthusiastic
35% comfortable
15% some reservations
8% very uncomfortable
7% makes no difference
1% not sure
I think the choice here is clear what people want.

Someone running as an independent not affiliated with either party:
13% enthusiastic
33% comfortable
17% some reservations
6% very uncomfortable
29% makes no difference
2% not sure

Voted for the stimulus package:
9% enthusiastic
30% comfortable
20% some reservations
26% very uncomfortable
13% makes no difference
2% not sure

Voted for the health care reform law:
17% enthusiastic
22% comfortable
14% some reservations
36% very uncomfortable
9% makes no difference
2% not sure
That's only 39% supporting and 50% against

The most telling of all the questions however is the one asking "how confident are you that Barack Obama has the right set of goals and policies to be president of the United States"
21% - Extremely Confident
19% - Quite Confident
22% - Somewhat Confident
37% - Not at all Confident

Obama is just a year and a half into his presidency yet he's getting near the same lagging responses in the polls that Bush began getting in 2006 after years of Democratic control media hounding and attacking him at every turn and the over hyped movies of Michael Moore and ads by Move On being pushed.  Obama's had the media out right admit they were supporting him and yet he's seeing the American public turning on him just as drastically.  It's no wonder Blue Hampshire and other Democrats are looking everywhere and anywhere to find something to attack and take the focus of themselves.  They won in 2006 and 2008 by getting people to vote against Bush, now they control it all and have nothing people want to vote for.

So getting back to the title of the Blue Hampshire article asking what's worse then an endorsement by Sarah?  The answer is clearly a Democrat currently in office who supports spending, voted for the health care bill and voted for the stimulus.

What We Got Here Is Failure To Comunicate

It never fails to amaze me how Democrats and Republicans can often times look at something and come to completely different conclusions.

Take the deficit problems in NH right now, Democrats look and say it's a revenue problem where as Republicans see it as a spending problem.

Blue Hampshire proved this is the case once again by taking a quote by Karen Testerman (R) and as typical failing to draw the same conclusion most others would.

The quote is in regards to Marjorie Smith (D)'s room and meals tax option which would allow towns to create local room and meals taxes on top of the room and meals taxes already collected by the state.  Karen's response was:

By opening the flood gates to allow towns to assess their own Rooms and Meals taxes they are breaking New Hampshire into hundreds of small taxing governments.  This scheme isn't going to work.

Before reading on reread that quote and really understand what is being said.

Of course Blue Hampshire sees this and they equate the power to tax with local control.  These are NOT one in the same because the state and federal government place requirements on towns stripping them of local control, they then toss a bone of allowing towns new creative ways to add new taxes and say look now you have local control.  In reality though that's not the case.

Blue Hampshire's follow up quote is:

But the ghosts of Meldrim Thomson and William Loeb cast long shadows, so we don't really have a choice on the predominant revenue structure in the Granite State, do we?

Budget cutting is not even considered an option to them.  It's as if they just don't realize government isn't always necessary as the be all end all solution to everything.

Steve MacDonald already reported on this shift in taxation calling it a trap. I have to agree with his assessment but not necessarily for the same reasons he points to.  I've pointed out before and I do so here again that the key tool Democrats use in taxation is creating more and more new taxes so they can mask how much you really pay.  Creating a new local tax allows the spending to continue to rise at local levels while masking how much is actually being collected.  It also allows the state to push more spending down onto the local level to give the impression Lynch is trying to build for himself as being fiscally responsible because after all the state budget will appear to balance and it wont be state property taxes going up.

It's smoke and mirrors.

So Blue Hampshire, I do want local control but that doesn't mean more taxes.  Give me one single tax bill and the local authority to say what I do or do not want included in that tax bill.  Why is that so hard to understand?