Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson


Entries in Democrats (112)


US Money Turning Into Leaves

I love it when the left speak candidly and let you know what they really think or believe.

A discussion began to the following comment from Senator Ayotte (taken from as the version posted on Blue Hampshire is edited):

"While I welcome the president's openness to simplifying our tax code to spur economic growth, as well as his acknowledgment that we must reform Medicare to preserve it, I'm concerned that he proposed many new programs without saying how we could afford them. With over $16 trillion in debt and the economic challenges we face, we need to enact a large deficit reduction plan that includes tax reform and entitlement reform, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to put permanent limits on Washington spending."
– Senator Kelly Ayotte

Fair statement, right?  After all if we are going to spend money on something we in turn need to find a way to pay for what we're spending.

Here are two responses found in the discussion posted HERE:

Somebody needs to tell Senator Ayotte that the federal government is where our money comes from. All dollars, whether in circulation or stored in some bank, are nothing but certified IOUs — i.e. debt, what somebody owes to somebody else. A country that prints its own money can never run out. - hannah

That’s a concept way above Ayotte’s pay level to understand. She doesn’t get it. She needs to be replaced ASAP. The only thing she seems to do is get her picture taken with angry old white men, like McCain and Graham and McConnell. - mevansnh


So in liberal land, money doesn't need to be backed by anything.  We as a country just keep printing more with the promise that someday down the road we'll pay it back or perhaps our kids or their kids will.

I wonder how long that would work in our private lives?

If I want food for lunch, don't worry... here's an IOU, I'll pay you back some other time.

I need new cloths?  Here's another IOU, I'll pay you back some other time.

New car, sure... here's another IOU.

How about a nice house too... here take this IOU.

At some point the cook who made my food, the tailor who made my cloths, factory who made my car and contractors who built my house will want something in return for the value they provided me.  Empty promises just don't work.

Government is no different.

For our dollars to be worth something when we trade with other countries they need to be backed by something.  Empty promises while we continue to print more and more money with nothing backing it only lowers the value of that money and eventually it will be viewed as no different then the leaves on a tree.  Every year more and more will drop with nothing backing them.



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.


Rep Chase Limits On Freedoms

Having forgotten the original offense Rep Chase made that Steve had written about on his blog found HERE, so I was doing some web searching to find her original statements.  In doing so I uncovered a statement I find rather telling.

State Rep Chase wrote:

“Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

Her statement calling for measures restricting freedom on a minority of people spawned a petition signed by 120 people, some of whom don't even live in NH calling for her removal from office or censure.

While some of the 120 people actually were free staters, some weren't but that didn't stop the left from attempting to claim they were all free staters and that this action represents the entire free state project.  This of course deflects the focus away from her original statement and instead puts the FSP on defensive, typical tactic from the left.

But I'm burying my lead here.  In searching for details on her statement I can across a statement from State Rep Jim Splaine found HERE.  Before quoting him, let me preface by saying he was one of the leaders in NH calling for equal rights and freedoms for gays and helped push same sex marriage in NH.

Theyz are a funny bunch of peoples. Cynthia Chase should be given a commendation for being honest, and re-elected to another term.

Kind of weird that a “group” of people who try to make us feel they’re for a “free” anything want to shut up those who question their motives and so-called “ideals.”

Time to ignore them, except of course we can’t — we have to keep an eye on them, otherwise they would want to take democracy and freedom away from more of us so they can get their own way for their own selfish purposes. Therein lies the danger of their “project.”

So freedom for him and his kind are ok but someone who dare calls out for measures to limit freedoms on another minority is something that should be commended?  Really Jim?

Need I remind Rep Splaine that many free state members were also very vocal in supporting his push for same sex marriage, mind you there were others who feel as I do (and for the record I'm not a FSP member) that we'd be better going the opposite way getting government out of the marriage business.

He defends the act of wanting to limit the freedoms of the FSP members by claiming it is they who want to take freedoms away from others.  What freedoms do they want taken away?  The freedom to use government to force others to fund the things you want against their will?  The freedom to use government to force people into acting and doing what you feel is in their best interest?

And as for taking our "Democracy" away, we are NOT a democracy.  Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of a democracy calling it two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Majority rules equal majority tyranny over the minority.  As a homosexual, Jim of all people should understand the importance of rules to protect the minority from the majority.  Or would he rather see same sex marriage put up to a state wide vote (ie pure democracy) and live with the results of the outcome?

Of all the people coming to the aid and defense of Rep Chase it is Jim Splaine who I am most shocked by because he of all people I would have thought would have condoned anyone wishing to pass measures to limit the freedoms of a minority.  I also find it interesting that he calls her statements "honest", so Jim do you wish to limit on certain minorities as well but just lack the same courage she has to admit it?

Hey Jim, let's change the group she's refering too and see if you still think the statement deserves a commendation and is worthy of someone being re-elected:

“Homosexuals are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

I'm sorry but her statement is offensive regardless of which group you put in the blank and ANYONE who dare claim that they think that government should pass measures to restrict freedoms of another group is someone not fit for office. And the fact that the Democratic party not only doesn't see the problem with this statement but is also defending it and that a leading homosexual activist likewise fails to see the problems with it, shows how hypocritical they are.

Statements like hers are what lead this country to the days of black only entrances and seating and signs like "Irish need not apply".  I don't want to see us ever return to that and I do agree with the petition that anyone who thinks that way should be removed from office.  Government is not there to limit freedoms of those you disagree with, it's only job should be making sure your rights are not stepped on by those who disagree with you.


Not My Mess

It dawned on me today that Democrats remind me of my kids. 

In an online debate I was having I pointed out how nearly every single poster who was positive about Obama was going on about how "historic" it was he was being sworn in for a 2nd term because he was our first black president.  I pointed out that since there was nothing being said of his character and accomplishments and instead the focus was on the color of his skin we clearly haven't accomplished the dream MLK had.

At this point I would have thought a well informed Democrat would list out the accomplishments they credit Obama with.  Of course none did.  Instead the argument turned back that he had to inherit all these problems from Bush and from there they repeated talking point after talking point.  You know the ones... the Iraq war on credit cards, Bush ruined the Economy etc. etc. etc..

I gave our leftist friends a 2nd chance to show me up asking point blank, can you please site some of Obama's accomplishments since unemployment is no better today then it was when he took office, the wars in the middle east he said he'd end continue worse then ever, the Patriot Act that Democrats blasted Bush for was expanded under Obama, the deficit has gone up so high that it makes even the last 2 years under Bush look good, GITMO prison which was so evil has been expanded, taxes on those of us making less then $250,000 a year have gone up, ObamaCare is now starting to show is increasing health care costs instead of decreasing as it was suppose to... what is better off today as a result of Obama and his policies?

Did even a single person come back with anything?

I was at least expecting that he killed Osama or he opened it up to allowing gays in the military.  Granted the first was accomplished using intelligence gathered under Bush using "torture" and the 2nd is subject to point of view as whether or not it was an accomplishment but I'll give those two to him.

But what else did he accomplish?  Anything?

The responses came back once again blaming Bush for everything under the sun.

This brings us back to my kids and how they remind me of this group of Democrats.

I walk into a room full of toys.  It doesn't matter who's toys they are or how they got on the floor, I just want them picked up.  I say to my kids that it's time to pick up the toys.  Instead of doing this they argue back that it was the other one who made the mess.  I say again, it doesn't matter who made the mess but you have to clean it up.

Obama didn't make the mess, this I'll agree on.  The economic down turn started before he became president (let's ignore any responsibility he had in office prior to becoming president and since we're being generous let's also ignore that Democrats held the house and senate since the 2006 elections).  However he ran for office as the guy who would clean up the mess.  He's had 4 years so far and the mess is still on the floor.

Democrats, instead of focusing on the mess and discussing how to clean it up, continue to argue about who made the mess in the first place and just like my kids attempt to draw focus onto something different ignoring the mess that they should be responsible for cleaning up.



If 8 is good and 10 is better why not go up to 100 or 1000

Interesting discussion over on Blue Hampshire this week regarding a bill currently pending in the state house.

HB 127 "AN ACT relative to the state minimum hourly rate."

Our friends over at Blue Hampshire had the following to say about this bill idea:

First I would like to say that I am happy to see that Rep Sullivan is already pushing for a higher minimum wage.  However, does this law go far enough?  Is $8.00 per hour really what we want to set the NH minimum wage at?

Right now, New Hampshire is the bottom of the barrel in minimum wage laws.  Massachusetts is already at $8.00 p/h. Vermont is at $8.60.  This is good, but I think we should push for more.

There is already a national push to move minimum wage to $10.00 an hour over the next two years.  The proposal was put in last session and failed to gain traction.

To sum it up, the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is bad.  $8 an hour is better but $10 is better yet.

When I read this I think then if $10 is better yet why stop there?  Wouldn't $20 an hour be even better.  Or $50?  Or why not $100 or $1,000 an hour?

Why not just make minimum wage an even $1 Million an hour and solve all the problems in our country all at once?

Think about it.  Students with tens of thousands in student loan debts would be able to pay them off with just a single hours worth of work.  Families struggling to pay off their mortages would be able to pay off their debts after a single day of work.  And with everyone earning $1 million an hour we'd have more then enough in tax revenue to pay off the national debt in no time.

Great idea right?

Sure, it's a great idea until you consider reality.

Let's assume you run a business.  You sell widgets for $5 each.  The company that makes them charges you $3 each for them so for every unit sold you earn $2 profit.

In an average day you can sell around 350 units.  350 X $2 profit means you earn $700 in profits during a normal 8 hour day.  Being a typical business you can't do everything alone so you have a couple employees.  Let's say you have two cashiers to cash people out, a stock boy to make sure the shelves are filled and a maintenance guy who fixes things around the shop.

It costs roughly $20,000 a year in benefits for an average full time employee.  This is a combination health care costs, taxes, insurance etc.  To be generous let's lower this down to just an even $10,000 a year because suddenly ObamaCare makes employing people cheaper.  So we have $10,000 divided by 52 weeks then again by 40 hours comes to $4.80 an hour for the cost of benefits per employee.

Doing the current math...

2 cashiers each earning $7.25 + $4.80 in benefits costs your business $24.10 every hour.

The stock boy has worked for you for a while so he's up to $8 an hour + $4.80 in benefits so he costs the business $12.80 an hour

The maintenance guy, being skilled, earned $20 an hour + $4.80 so he's $24.80 an hour

This brings the total up to $61.70 every hour not including your own salary.  This comes out to $493.60 a day in expenses leaving $206.40 for your own salary to live off.  Which breaks down to $21 an hour plus your own benefits of $4.80.

Increasing minimum wage to $10 an hour as our Blue Hampshire friends propose as a great idea would add to your expenses.

Your 2 cashiers are now $10 an hour + $4.80 so they come out to be $29.60

The stock boy bumps up to $10 an hour + $4.80 coming to $14.80

Assuming you keep your maintenance guy the same he'll still come out to $24.80 an hour

Now every hour you have to come up with $69.20 which all else the same leaves you with $7.50 an hour less in your own salary.

Here are a couple more things to consider...

If you were that stock boy who has slowly gotten increases over the years would you be happy now if you were essentially back at minimum wage earning exactly the same as the two cashiers who just started their jobs?

If you were the business owner would you attempt to get by on less?  Most would increase the price of their product.  Chances are since the company making the widget likewise has to pay out more in salaries they too will increase their price and the trucking company bringing the widget from the company that makes it to your stock room will also charge more.  350 units per day average just about 44 units per hour.  To make our math easier let's round it up to an even 50.  50 units an hour would mean every 2 cents in price equals $1 an hour in store income.  To raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 an hour would be a 38% increase.  Saying not everyone earns minimum wage from the manufacturer to your business let's say it only results in a 20% increase.  That $3 now becomes $3.20 and just to make up the $7.50 loss you saw in your own salary you'd need to increase your own price an additional 15 cents on top of what you are being charged.  Now your widget is selling for $5.35

With an increase on the cost of living with the cost of products going up, now your maintenance guy's standard of living dropped as did yours own and this is just on a 5 employee shop.

Since you own the business you have the ability to increase the cost you sell your product for so your own standard of living wouldn't drop but there isn't a law requiring you to make it up to your maintenance guy since he's above minimum wage.

So what happens?  The business owner (let's call him Rich) can set his own salary so he keeps going up the ladder by passing off higher costs on those buying his product.  Those at the bottom see a small bump but they also see increased costs.  Those in the middle class get completely screwed because they see increased costs but don't see any increases in wages to make up for it.

In other words, the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer, everything democrats claim they are against.

And if you want to really add a double dose of reality into the mix, let's say it's a bigger company who has 100 or even 1,000 employees.  In their case, rather then increase costs to consumers they can get around the added expenses by laying off 5 or 10 percent of their workforce.  This puts more people living off government, increases expenses and taxes on the rest of us.

No one wins.