Nashua NH Democrat lets Out of State Campaign Worker Register to Vote from Her Home

Nashua New Hampshire Democrat Cindy Rosenwald is back in the spotlight.  If you recall, she's the one who admitted that her party not only knew it had left an 800 million dollar hole in the budget, but they planned to cut spending to fix it.  Well, now we find out that she knew there were out of state voters voting in New Hampshire, because at least one of them has been voting from her Nashua Address since at least 2007.

Ed Nail, here at NH Insider, recently reported on the voting history of a professional Democrat Campaign lackey by the name of Paolo Cozzi.    Mr. Cozzi lived on Clement Street in Sommerville, Massachusetts (Update- He is now currently living in DC).  But they had more than enough Democrats living in MA, so in 2007, 2008 and 2012, Paolo Cozzi hopped on the commuter rail (hey, that's why Liberals want rail service to Nashua), or got in his Obama-mobile--(Cozzi is employed in the service of OFA)--and put his vote to better use by claiming to live at 101 Wellington Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, the home of Democrat House Rep. Cindy Rosenwald.

Cozzi did vote from his Massachusetts "home" in 2010--remember 2010?  That was the year that a Republican actually had a slim chance to win in Massachusetts.  So OFA campaign animal Paolo Cozzi voted where it mattered more that year (in MA), but he mostly votes in the Granite State, from the home of Cindy Rosenwald at ...where was that again?   101 Wellington St, Nashua, New Hampshire.

I wonder if Ms. Rosenwald has ever taken in any other "stray cats" from the liberal campaign apparatus and allowed them to claim residence in her home for "voting purposes."

I'll guess we'll have to keep looking into that.

So!  Given these developments what do you think Ms. Rosenwald's position and voting history could be on domicile and voter ID in New Hampshire?

Thanks to our good friends at Granite State Progress (yes I cached the page) we know exactly how she voted.  She voted to make sure that her domicile-mate of electoral convenience Paolo, could continue to live in Sommerville,  Massachusetts (or anywhere else), and still vote in Nashua, New Hampshire--whenever the urge struck him, without fear of in-state interference.

Voting Rights

• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring every registered voter to sign an affidavit and be photographed before being allowed to cast a ballot if they do not present a photo ID. This legislation was anticipated to discourage voter participation and create long lines at polling locations. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #244, 5/15/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing potentially unconstitutional and certainly unfair restrictive prohibitions on the voting rights of individuals who serve in the military or pursue college course work, whether full or part-time. This bill also would not have allowed elected officials to move from their present domicile to another, even when that domicile is in the same district. (HB176, Roll Call #73, 3/15/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against making it more difficult for college students, military personnel and visiting professionals to participate in the democratic process by limiting their access to the voting booth. *ALEC Model Legislation* (HB1354, Roll Call #80, 2/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against allowing a person to arbitrarily challenge a voter at the polls without reason. Previously, an accusation had to be accompanied by a signed affadavit (sic) attesting to the reason for the challenge. Election law experts testified against this bill, citing potential increases in challenges based on racial profiling or political gamesmanship; they also anticipated longer lines and wait times at polling locations as challenges are freely thrown around. (HB1301, Roll Call #99, 2/22/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted Not Voting/Excused eliminating open primaries, which are a key part of the first in the nation primary. An open primary allows undeclared voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic Primary as they see fit. (HB1595, Roll Call #139, 3/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against limiting voting rights to those with particular forms of photo ID. For example, a person could use a Massachusetts or Maine driver's license as a valid photo ID to vote, but not a municipal photo ID issued by Raymond or Londonderry. The requirement would cause confusion and frustration at the polls and is bound to result in preventing some voters from casting their vote on Election Day. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB129, Roll Call #214, 6/1/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing language on voter registration forms that would intimidate students and other from voting in New Hampshire. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB318, Roll Call #286, 6/6/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring voters to show specific forms of photo ID when voting, a requirement that will disenfranchise voters who cannot meet those requirements (such as the elderly and disabled). This bill did not provide for any voter education of the new provisions, which could lead to people being turned away from the polls when they go to vote. (HB1354, Roll Call #306, 6/27/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against overriding Gov. Lynch's veto of a bill requiring registered voters produce photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Voting rights advocates were opposed to this legislation. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #307, 6/27/2012)

All very interesting.

So now we have to wonder...will Ms. Rosenwald take to the Internet to explain this to us?  What crazy story will she concoct?  Should we expect another "myth" post explaining away her complicity?  And will any of those "excuses" bring up questions that create new problems for the Democrat House Rep from Nashua?

We patiently await a response.

You are reading  "Nashua NH Democrat lets out of state OFA campaign worker vote from her home"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Bill Clinton Endorses Maggie Hazz…um….Hasss….uh..Who Are You Again?

There have been no reports of sexual harassment (that’s Her-Ass-Meant) during President Bill Clinton’s recent drive-by endorsement of New Hampshire Democrat Margret ‘Louisville Slugger’ Hassan.  But Clinton did have enough time to say some stuff.

“There’s a great plan for the future of the state of New Hampshire: Smoke more, learn less,” Clinton said.

You’d think reducing tobacco taxes would be a plus for a guy with Bill Clinton’s ‘appreciation” for  cigars.  But hey, honestly you are right Mr. Bill.  Taxpayers should pay for someone elses kids to get drunk and earn a degree in the History of Gender Philosophy Studies .  Making them pay for their own education is so self -responsible and free market.  No one would want people like that.  And when they ‘graduate’ with a major in “The Catharsis of Economic Freedom And Opportunity Under Democrat Rule” they can stand in line for a job at Staples or Burger King and use their degree to keep the rain off their $500.00 iPhone.

More?

“Nobody paid attention to what they said they would do when they voted,” Clinton said. “Politicians are actually more honest than most people think they are.”

That’s a good answer.  So Maggie Hassan really thinks it’s OK to physically beat Republican’s with a bat?  Got it.

Hazz…Hasss…Hassan said some stuff too but sadly there was none of that honesty Perjurer Bill Clinton spoke of regarding her actual voting record.  All the taxes and fees she piled on the backs of the middle class.  The attempt at speech intimidation by keeping small business out of the political debate.  The effort to socialize health care in the state.  And that 800 million dollar deficit that NH House Democrat Finance committee member Cindy Rosenwald admitted that Democrat leaders (Like Hassan) knew about but now deny ever existed…All sadly absent.

Just TEA party this and TEA party that.  You know.  Those evil TEA Party people want you to “keep more of what you earn” or  “to get a little more freedom from unelected Bureaucrats.”  Democrats would never vote for that awful stuff.

Quotes Courtesy of the Internet and the National Telegraph

You are reading "Bill Clinton Endorses...who are you again!"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Democrat NH House Rep Cindy Rosenwald – About That 800 Million Dollar Deficit

Nashua Democrat House Rep Cindy Rosenwald (Fiance Committee) recently penned an op/ed entitled ‘The 800 Million Budget Deficit Myth, in which she attempted to demonstrate that that evil rumor about Democrats leaving a huge hole in the State budget were not true.

Rosenwald’s entire premise turned on the fact that the State has to balance it’s budget so how could there be a deficit?  But then she tries to explain it and things go horribly wrong.

[so] how did the Republicans turn the reality of the Democratic surplus into the myth of the Democratic deficit? Well, the answer lies in the additional federal stimulus money that flowed into New Hampshire for two and a half years through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  This extra money, $802 million in total, helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession. The federal money was one-time assistance. The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.

Wait a minute?  You said the 800 million dollar deficit was a myth.  Then you admit that democrats needed $802 million in one time money the state did not have to pay for their spending.  Then you say the Democrat majority knew that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.  Not be a deficit. Not be a deficit?

So…..If Democrats knew there was going to be an 800 million dollar deficit how can the 800 million dollar deficit be a myth?

And if Democrats knew we would have to cut (because of the 802 million in one time money), to make sure there would be no deficit, why did Democrats freak out when Republicans cut that spending so there wouldn’t be a deficit just like you claim Democrats wanted?

Now might be a good time to quickly revisit the NH Democrat Parties spending history of which Cindy (as a Democrat House rep) was an integral part, because that “helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession,” that’s only remotely true if you understand why they NH Democrats needed the money in the first place.

Prior to January 2007, the New Hampshire’s State Budget was just over 9 billion.  The State budget Republicans inherited when they won the legislature back four years later was 11.5 billion.  So Democrats, when given complete unrestricted stewardship of the budget and a Democrat governor willing to sign off on it, ballooned the cost of your state government by 17.5% in the first biennium (before the fiscal crisis) and by as much as 25% over four years, without any consideration for how to pay for it before hand–unless they had something else in mind all along.

So to put that in perspective, it took 219 years (2628 months) to get the New Hampshire budget to just over 9 billion dollars a year.  New Hampshire Democrats added 2.5 Billion to that in just 48 months.  And Democrats had been warned in 2006 that business revenue estimates had probably peaked.  Despite that the Democrats piled on new spending.

Democrat leadership was quoted as saying things like “It makes sense to know how much you’re spending before you decide how much money to raise,” And “look to the sky when you do revenue estimates because we need the money.”  And still, Cindy would like us to believe that the Democrat Leadership knew there would be a Democrat driven deficit in the following 2011-2012 budget and that Democrats were prepared to cut the budget to close the gap.  So the deficit can’t possibly be a myth, can it Cindy?

You want to know what the real “myth” in Cindy’s story is?  The myth is that Democrats were ever planning to cut the budget.  The myth is that Democrats were responsible stewards of the peoples money.

The facts are clear as day.  New Hampshire Democrats needed the one-time money because they had over-spent, added over 100 new fees and taxes,  had crammed down pension costs to towns and cities, had raised the rooms and meals tax–and were trying to denying local municipalities their existing share of Rooms and meals revenue, all because they couldn’t balance the budget…and STILL needed another 800 million to hide the massive hole they had created.  The people of New Hampshire had finally rejected their tax and spend agenda.  They could not do what they wanted to do–raise even more taxes.

The Democrats began losing a handle on things well before the November 2010 wipe out.  Taxpayers were in revolt.   Democrats had to cut their own bloated budget, layoff state employees, and find new fiscal hoops to jump though to satisfy state law, which demanded the budget be balanced.

And Democrats never planned to cut anything.  No one adds a hundred taxes and fees, and then tries to pass a new broad based business tax with the intent of cutting spending.

They were planning to stay in power.  And the plan was to blame the economy and the wealthy, and greedy business owners, and then insist that the only possible way, the only “fair way” to close the large structural ‘deficit’ they had intentionally made a feature of every future budget, would be to institute on a broad based sales or income tax.  They would even promise tax relief in other places to sell the lie, but just like every other coven of leftist tax and spenders, it wold never quite work out that way, because it never does.

But that all fell apart.   Without one-time Federal money New Hampshire Democrats would have never even come close to balancing their last budget.  And without recurring one-time money or any plan to pay for the spending they left us with, there was a structural imbalance of at least 800 million more than we were ever going to take in without either raising taxes or cutting spending.  It actually worked out to be closer to 1.2 billion, but whose really counting.  Certainly not the John Lynch or the Democrats.

So Republicans cut spending, which according to Cindy, is what the Democrats had planned all along.

So maybe in her next op/ed Democrat Cindy Rosenwald will explain why the left lost their minds when Republicans did what Democrats–Cindy included–had planned all along?  To cut spending to eliminate the Democrats 800 million dollar structural shortfall.  Or is she lying about that?  Were they really just planning to raise more taxes?  Looking at the Democrat’s history you ought to be able to figure that out for yourself.

(NH Financial report ending June 2006, just so we all know how things were before the Democrats took complete control.)