Steven J Connolly


Not The Only One. 

Several blogs ago I reported on my concerns about the NH State Port Authority.

It now appears that I'm not the only one with these type of concerns.

Representative Cali-Pitts from Rockingham District #20 has introduced H.B. 144, which is legislation that would consider the future of the NH State Port Authority. The bill is now before the Public Works Committee. Think the hearing on it is today or tomorrow. House Bill 144 calls for a study of the NH State Port Authority. Quality idea in a political environment.

I really support the idea and intention of H.B. 144 as I don't believe the NH State Port Authority even has a future once the Panama Canal opens in 2016. But lets move on:

It was my direct experience in the NH House that leadership often does not like "study committees." which H.B. 144 is. There are lots of issues with "study committees" the appointment of members is a large part of this. The agenda, direction and implemention of the final product is yet another. I also know that that many members of the state senate do not like "study committees" either.

I'll now make a prediction here: H.B. 144 passes the house and gets killed in the senate. This is politics.

I'm not trying to discourage the idea here because H.B. 144 is a very quality idea. Something clearly needs to happen at the NH State Port Authority, but I still don't think a study committee would be the way to make anything happen.

A better route to go would be for Rep. Cali-Pitts to put together of consortium of legislators and stakeholders in Portsmouth and parties that do business with the port. This would require alot of hours, leg work and effective communication. I think the only real chance for the NH State Port Authority, as an operating port would be to merge and become a direct subsidiary of either the ports of Boston or Portland, Maine.

Again alot of hard work would have to be done to make an idea like this happen. A study committee cannot replace hard work either.


Sen. Bradley Paranoia. 

I've recently found myself in a number of situations involving weapons.

This is one of them...

I'm now reading that former member of Congress and current State Senator Jeb Bradley is a primary sponsor and activist behind expanding "concealed carry licenses in NH." This is a license that enables a person to carry a firearm concealed.

I'll now interject my own bias. And I've said this before. Sen. Bradley was chairman of my assigned committee, Science, Technology & Energy during my second term in the NH House. I was never impressed with his performance. It always seemed to me that he was more interested in serving and pleasing he lobbyists than he was in serving his district. I can remember once during a contentious public hearing the "pushing and shoving" lobbyists took the best seats in the committee room leaving the general public to stand in the hallway.

He could have cared less. This Legislative Session Will Prove To Be Nothing More Than A Distraction. We Need A Return To Biennial Legislative Sessions.

But let's move on. Why does anybody need to carry a concealed weapon in New Hampshire? What exactly are these reason(s)? Is a source of protection against a threat, what exactly is this threat?

I've also said that this legislative session will be nothing more than a distraction.

This concealed carry legislation is an example of this.


Selling Moar Gunz In NH

I've recently found myself involved in a number of situations involving weapons.

The first one was last nite in the break room at my employment at the saltmine in central NH. In any case at least three of my co-workers two whom were "temps" and one that I actually know were talking about "getting a permit for a machine gun." They were actually planning on purchasing it "tax free"here in New Hampshire. I don't know, or care which particular model but wouldn't find it surprising that it would be a newly manufactured AK-47 under Russian design standards, which has made the news recently as trade sanction(s) are in effect with Russia, but apprantly weapon sales don't qualify under the sanction(s)? Russian Designed AK-47 Assault Rifle. To Be Sold In "Tax Free" New Hampshire.

So let's move on..

"So why do you need a machine gun?" I asked the threesome sitting around a circular table. They responded blankly. I'm expecting to hear the big ole Second Amendment charge. It's an important constitutional right to own a machine gun. Or any weapon that is capable of firing numerous rounds in automatic, rapid succession.

"Is somebody treatening you?" I say and then continue on with an add-on: "Have you gone through any type of weapons handing training?"Again, no answers to my question not even an attempt.

I'll stop short of calling this ignorance. But that is what is.

I went through extensive weapons training in the U.S. Coast Guard. It was a challenge in everything from general weapons handling to judgmental shooting procedures to the maintenance requirements for both the weapons and more importantly, the ammunition which can also be as dangerous as the weapon.

Should the sale of automatic weapons be restricted in New Hampshire?

I say the answer to this question should be "yes" and it has nothing to do with some of the violence that has happened in places like Newtown, Connecticut. Any individual wants to own a weapon like this they should be required to take the same courses, (and pass); that the military is required to for use of these automatic weapons. They are designed for military use.

I'm confident that nothing will be done. This is another example of how New Hampshire and Gov. Hassan are failing. Instead of declaring an emergency due to a "winter storm" which happens in the granite state they should be asking the same question(s) that I am.

Why does anybody need to own an AK-47 Assault Rifle?



It's Better Over Here. 

Every time I get frustrated about what is happening, or not happening here in New Hampshire I go over to Vermont.

And I feel much better about New Hampshire.

Vermont is in deep trouble.

Yesterday I reported on the passed Internet Sales Tax. Today I'm hearing of it's consequences. Companies like are refusing to pay this tax, and instead terminating it's reseller relationships and passing through the tax to consumers, some of which have stated their desire to "move across the river." I hope that they do. This might be an image but the reality in Vermont is much different than this.

And it doesn't get better. The auditors report has come out about "tax collection" of this new internet tax. The State of Vermont is collecting roughly 1/10th of what they "thought they would collect when this tax was implemented." Let's put this another way: this is 10%. So assuming "they thought" $250,000.00 would be "collected" they are actually getting $25,000.00.

This won't even pay for the costs to collect the money.

See what I mean about feeling better about New Hampshire 


Taxing And Spending. 

This seems to be the trend that is moving. I'll now poise a question:

Will this session of the NH Legislature be any different?

I say no it won't. If anything this will be a session of of can kicking and distraction(s) for whatever reason this takes away the pressure and urgency to do something. An example of this in point: In her inaugural speech, and afterward much hay was thrown over the Gov. Hassan proposal to spend $250 million dollars on Manchester to Boston passenger rail service.

This as New Hampshire is lagging behind in basic maintenance items-- whether this is potholes or strategic replacement of "red list" bridges. The whole legislative session will be like this.

Big Ideas. No Progress.