Carol Pay Me Shea Porter

In the song Welcome to the Jungle Axle belts out the lyrics "You can have everything you want but you better not take it from me".  Current statements from Carol Shea Porter remind me of that line.

Democrat Jim Cooper came up with what I consider a brilliant bill, the No Budget, No Pay Act which will prevent members of Congress from getting paid unless they pass a budget (as the Constitution requires them to do).  This bill has received support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Of course when push came to shove, our local Congress-woman Carol Shea Porter voted against the bill claiming "The wealthy people in the House and Senate can go without the pay, but others will be hurt along with their families for something that wasn’t their decision"

So its ok to take away money from other people as long as she isn't the one impacted.  And she doesn't even think it's right to withhold pay from people who aren't even willing to do the job of creating a budget that they are legally required to do.

And what about all the people hurting right now because Congress can't do the job they were elected to do?  What about the people who are hurting right now because gas and oil prices continue to climb and unemployment numbers remain high?

I guess its ok for them to hurt as long as Carol's ok.

Carols plan vs reality on guns

In Carol Shea Porter's column "Time For Action" she spells out her simple plan to end gun violence.  I'd like to share and evaluate each of her simple steps, I'll skip the first few paragraphs where she skillfully invokes the poor children in an attempt to muster up emotion over factual discussion.  After all it's more important that we "feel" safe.

Some in Congress were upset at even the mildest suggestions, such as doctors asking if there are guns in the house so they can talk about safety issues involved when there are children in the residence. Doctors ask if somebody smokes around children. They talk about being safe and careful with candles and stoves, but apparently, they should not ask about a huge killer of children—guns.

If a doctor wishes to ask questions of patients there is no problem with that.  Doctors are just as entitled to free speech as anyone else in this country.  However, the problem is when the same government who requires business to provide "free" birth control and requires doctors to perform abortions even when those things go against their religious beliefs push the "conscience objection" clause to allow doctors to refuse to treat families who own guns. Carol, you aren't a doctor so don't play one.  Let doctors do their jobs and ask what questions they want, not which questions you force them to ask.

The easiest step should be to require background checks for gun sales. This means gun sales involving most private sales also. The majority of Americans support this plan. We also need to make sure that critical information is available when there is a background check. Records right now are too often incomplete, and do not identify a buyer’s criminal history or a dangerous mental illness.

The reason records are often incomplete is because Democrats continue to push laws protecting criminals.

Mass is a perfect example, they have a state law which prevents any mental health records from being shared with the FBI.

What's interesting is how the left push for privacy of medical records, they bend over backwards to allow women access to abortions even when they are in their teens with total privacy including from their own parents.  They fight to protect the privacy of criminals and illegals.  But then when it comes to gun registration they're the first ones to push to print names and addresses of legal gun owners in the news papers.

It is time to end high-capacity magazine sales. It used to be that citizens had a chance to get away from a shooter when he had to stop to reload. But with high-capacity magazines, the killer can just keep firing away a lot longer, murdering many more innocent folks. Hunters do not need to fire 30 rounds. Neither do citizens exercising their right to defend themselves. I support banning magazines holding more than ten rounds. This will help law enforcement and the public to disarm a mass shooter, and it will give people a better chance to escape a madman.

It's statements like this that show how out of touch Carol is.

Again she's high on emotion but lacks factual data.  For starters, with new 3D printing technology a killer no longer needs to buy a 30 round clip.  Just print one from your home.

Secondly, the idea that you'd be able to somehow get away when a shooter has to stop an reload is something that only happens in movies.

Look at the shootings that Carol and others publicize.  Sandy Hook, the killer had 4 guns with him.  In Columbine they carried four weapons between the two of them.  Even if it did take a while to reload, when you are dealing with people carrying multiple weapons, the reload time is irrelevant.

And speaking of reloading time, take a look at YouTube, there are several videos showing people dropping a cartridge and popping in a second one in 3 seconds time.  When you have a school full of children hiding in bathrooms and under tables without and defense and as in the case of Sandy Hook it takes police over 20 minutes before they enter the building from the time the first shots are fired, do you really think that 3 or even 10, assuming the killer is slow, seconds to pop out a clip and pop in a new one is really going to make a difference?  They can do that while walking down a hallway from one room of innocents to the next.

Carol's suggestions sure feel like they would make us safe but in reality would they accomplish anything?  Would they even save one life?  Or by creating a false sense of security would they cost lives?

I support President Obama’s call to close loopholes in gun trafficking laws, and to beef up law enforcement in communities.

Gun trafficking, you mean like the Fast and Furious where Obama's administration gave away 2,500 of the same high powered guns they want to take away from Americans then lost track of them?

Let’s also step up mental health services, and work together to encourage a reduction of violence in video games and television and movies.

Since many of those same Hollywood liberals who make the violent shows on TV and movies are Obama supporters, I'm sure Carol and the rest of the Democrats will have no problem getting them to stop making movies like they do.

And as I pointed out, it's Democrats who passed law after law over the years to protect our privacy that now also prevent medical professionals and others like the FBI, access to information that would otherwise prevent someone mentally unstable from having a gun in the first place.

There is another step, an assault weapon ban, that will require more political debate, but these ideas listed here are common-sense ideas that should have no political test of courage attached to them. Can’t we at least get this done now? Let’s get it done now. It already has been a long and deadly wait.

And there you have it, she artfully saves the best for last... the ever so popular suggest from the left, the gun ban on "assault weapons", which of course gets silly when you begin to define what makes a regular weapon an "assault weapon".

If Carol wants to have more political debate then let's have it.. let's discuss safety and what we can do to really make us safe, not what makes everyone "feel" safe.

Here's some idea...

3 out of every 5 of all gun deaths in this country are self inflicted suicide.  Democrats claim to be in favor of doctor assisted suicide so supporting that belief, shouldn't these deaths be viewed as ok?

When you look at 2011 numbers, of the 32,163 total gun deaths, 19,766 were self inflicted and only 12,397 where not.  Compare that to the fact that 19,741 people in a given year (1999 in this case) die due to accidental poisoning.

So you have a higher chance of being accidentally poisoned then you do being shot.

Roughly 3,000 gun deaths every year are "children", that makes up about 10% of the total deaths.  Now I say children in quotes because most of the government agencies that report on statistics of gun deaths use ages 0 to 19 as children.  This is important because taking 18 and 19 year olds out of the mix cuts that number in half and at 18 and 19 many "children" have graduated and moved on to full time carriers in crime as drug dealers or gotten involved in gangs.

In fact when looking deeper at numbers by cities, some cities report that between 60 to as high as 95 percent of all gun deaths are gang related.

Given these statistics, how exactly is anything Carol suggests going to fix the problems leading to gun deaths?  When you have 5 or 10 gang members all carrying weapons do you think a victim will have more of a chance if those 5 or 10 people only have clips with 10 bullets instead of 15?

Here's another statistic for you to consider, 82% of all gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons.  Of the remaining, 11% guns received from "unknown sources".

So registration and background checks might effect a total of 7% of all gun crimes.  And that assumes that the people who would actually conduct that 7% wouldn't be able to pass a background check in the first place.  A husband who snaps because his wife is cheating on him wouldn't have a mental health issue showing in his background check.

Let's also think about what that 7% actually amounts to... Of the 12,397 gun deaths that were not accidental in 2011, 7% of that would be 868.  So 868 gun deaths were actually committed with legally purchased guns that may have actually gone through background checks.

Think about that number, 868, and then think about the fact that the US has an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the hands of civilians.

These are facts with no emotion driving them.

I'm open to people like Carol suggesting we should have political debate but if you want to do it, stick to actual facts and when you propose a solution explain how, using those facts, you suspect your solution will fix the problem without infringing on the rights of the rest of us.

Obama Won Again Predictions

While this years elections did not go the way I would have liked I would like to offer congratulations to the winners.  Many of my more liberal friends continue to chant that all that's wrong is Bush's fault so you now have four more years to put things straight.  I would like to know how long before Democrats can begin to be held accountable or when they will begin to admit that they aren't making things better and perhaps we need to try something different, or perhaps even look at history and look at what has been proven to work in the past?

I've given predictions in the past and for the most part I've been fairly accurate.  When Democrats took over all three branches in 2008 I said then we'd see sustained unemployment and out of control federal spending and sure enough we've had both.  Here is my new list, feel free to book mark this and come back in 2 and 4 years to hold me accountable on my accuracy.

Federal Level Predictions

1) For the next two years we will continue to see partisan bickering and Republicans will be blamed regardless of which party is actually responsible.  Obama will continue to blame Bush even after 8 years of no improvements.

2) The average citizens taxes will increase.  For current comparison, tax freedom day falls on April 16th for NH.

3) The upcoming fiscal cliff will result in a last minute deal which accomplishes nothing aside from kicking it a few years down the road.

4) The cost of fuel will continue to rise.  For comparison when we look back at this the current average right now is $3.49 a gallon and oil is currently $84 a barrel.

5) We'll see billions of dollars pumped into "clean energy" companies.

6) The National debt will continue to climb to record highs.  At the time of my writing this it stands at $16,220,829,251,060.66.  I'm willing to go on record stating we'll see $20 Trillion before Obama leaves office.  I'm also predicting that we'll continue to see annual deficits higher then even the worst year under G. W. Bush and the same Democrats who railed against Bush's out of control spending will continue to deflect saying that Republicans didn't complain when Bush was the one doing the spending (ignoring that they are proving themselves hypocrites and for the record I for one did complain).

7) If Democrats do succeed in kicking the fiscal cliff down the road a few years unemployment will drop to at very best 6% but if they don't I'm predicting we'll see it hit 10%.

8) Congress woman Carol Shea Porter will have at least a 97% in line party voting record with the Democratic party ignoring what's best for the people of NH and instead voting the way her party tells her to.

State Level Predictions

1) Spending will go up by at least 10% in the next state budget cycle.  Current 2013 state budget stands at $15,142,336,000.  Given this I'm guessing that in the next two year budget we'll see the 2015 annual budget hit $16,656,569,600.

2) NH Democrats will push once again for a seatbelt and/or helmet law.

3) There will be at least 1 bill put up attempting to repeal voter ID.

4) We will see attempts from the NH to weaken NH gun rights.

We'll revisit after a couple years and see how well I did.

Any Obama fans wishing to make their own predictions in the feedback, I likewise welcome yours as well.

Did Carol Shea Porter Actually Go There?

Once in a while you read a statement from a politician that makes you just shake your head and think they didn't just say that did they?  Carol Shea Porter's recent statement did just that.

In her recently released statement Carol stated:

"Congressman Frank Guinta should stop voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act until he reads it. He misled Boston radio listeners when he wrongly claimed that Congress is not required to be in the new Health Care Exchanges and, as Factcheck.org refutes, that there will be 16,000 IRS agents. People deserve facts, not false talking points.”

Seriously, did she just go there?  Democrats were the same group who told us the bill had to be passed in order to see what's in it, so do they seriously want to discuss reading anything before voting on it?

http://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To

Does Carol really want to remind voters of that one?

But I digress, she then claims that FactCheck.org refutes Frank Guinta's claims that "there will be 16,000 IRS agents" and "that Congress is not required to be in the new Health Care Exchanges".

Fair enough, when in doubt I actually go to the site and read for myself.

Let's start with the claim that congress would be exempt.  I could not find any FactCheck article debating that dated after the bill was finally amended and passed, only one from while it was still open for discussions which has the following update:

Update, April 19: After health care overhaul legislation was signed into law, the "exempt" claim morphed into one saying that some congressional staffers would be "exempt" from the amendment requiring them to get insurance through the exchanges. In the final legislation, the amendment included was written by Sen. Tom Coburn, and it says that congressional "staff" are considered to be "full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC."

Hmmm, that sure sounds like it is saying the same thing Frank Guinta stated.

And as for the claim of the 16,000 IRS agents?  Well again if you actually take the time to read what FactCheck.org says they state the reason they claim it is false is because:

there’s a huge difference between an IRS revenue agent — who calls on taxpayers and conducts face-to-face audits — and the workers who make up the bulk of IRS employees. Those who work at the IRS include clerks, accountants, computer programmers, telephone help line workers and other support staff. In fact, IRS revenue agents make up only 15 percent of the IRS workforce, according to the official IRS personnel summary

Ah so he's wrong based on a technicality that not everyone working for the IRS is an "Agent".

The other point FactCheck makes to claim this "false" is the 16,000 "agents" is based on the following quote:

CBO Director Elmendorf, March 11: CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. … [S]uch costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

To which FactCheck claims:

Note the words "probably" and "could." And the figure — based on preliminary analysis — could as easily be $5 billion as the $10 billion number the GOP analysts used.

Now here's the interesting part to this claim, the "Update" to the article points out:

Update, Feb. 22: The Treasury Department on Feb. 14 released the IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 that shows the agency is seeking 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That includes 291 IRS agents, most of them (193) to "ensure accurate delivery of tax credits." For more information, read our Ask FactCheck, "IRS and the Health Care Law, Part II."

So in it's first year before most of the legislation of the law has taken effect they've already attempted to add $473 million and 1,269 employees (291 of which were agents).  The $473 million over 10 years comes to roughly $5 Billion when you round it off and as I said that's before most of the bill has even taken effect.

All that aside, I don't really see a difference if we had to add 16,000 "agents" or just the 291 actual agents currently being requested, the fact is agents and hundreds of additional employees are going to be hired as a result of this bill and the cost to the tax payers is going to be into the Billions.  There's no defending that.  Carol and company can nit pick all they want but it does not change anything.  I'll give her half credit here agreeing that it is wrong to say 16,000 "agents" would be added but it doesn't mean ObamaCare is a good bill nor one that should stay on the books.

10 Reasons to ReElect Frank Guinta

A few weeks ago I wrote reminding everyone why Carol Shea Porter had to go when she was voted out of office, which you can read HERE.  I'd like to follow up to that pointing out what Frank Guinta has done right, or at the very least done better then Carol had in her terms.

1) One of Frank's first votes was to actually assure government transparency supporting a bill that would do away with the "we have to pass [it] so we can see what's in it" mentality of elected officails like Pelosi.  The bill he supported would have required all bills be posted online a full 24 hours before they could be voted on.

2) Frank was a co-sponsor of the STOCK act to ban all insider trading for federally elected officials and their staff.

3) Frank voted at least twice to cut his own budget producing a reduction of 11.4%.  Jan 5th, 2011 he voted for a 5% cut on all congressional budgets then later in the year supported an additional 6.4% cut.

4) Unlike Carol Shea Porter who's vote on H.R. 5146 was to end a single years automatic pay raise for Congress but allowed it to continue after the 2010 elections, Frank supported H.R. 431 to permanently end the automatic pay raises.

5) Voted in favor of the bill that required all bill or joint resolution to cite its constitutionality.

6) Co-sponsored a bill to amend to Constitution to prohibit federal spending in any fiscal year from exceeding receipts for that year.

7) Frank has voted in support of over 30 jobs bills, many of which made it through congress with bipartisan support.

Frank launched "Getting Granite Staters Back to Work" job survey to actually listen to small businesses and find out what they need to grow.  This was a stark comparison to Carol Shea Porters bogus town hall meetings (in which there was no listening, only lecturing) which ushered in paid union supporters through backdoors while closing the front doors to people like me who waited in line to speak out.

His initiative also launched several job fairs across the state.

8) Frank supported a number of bills to bring about true energy independence which included safely developing domestic oil, coal and natural gas as alternative sources such as solar, wind, hydropower and others.

9) Unlike Carol who voted to create a tax on artificial limbs, Frank has voted in favor of numerous bills to help assure that our veterans have access to the best medical care, helped fight homelessness and unemployment.  Frank even helped sponsor a special Veterans job fair in Manchester.

10) Unlike Carol who added her name to the audit the Fed bill only to withdraw support after telling her constituents that she co-sponsored it per their request, Frank did cosponsor the bill and didn't withdraw his support.