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.)

Steve Mac Donald
Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com 
email: steve@granitegrok.com
Twitter – @nhstevemacd
Facebook.com/nh.steve

Concord Monitor Takes a Stand – When It’s A Republican


We’ve been reporting the apparent theft of services by an SEIU Union Chapter VP and NH DES employee Richard de Seve for months as we struggle with the Department of Environmental Services and the State’s IT department, and their resistance to part with data, in response to our Right to Know Requests about state employees using taxpayer time and state equipment to politic at (ironically) the Concord Monitor.

We even called the Monitor out on it for ignoring the story and pointed out when their moderators were deleting comments from their site about our investigation, and their not reporting it.
While the Concord Monitor has (at lest temporarily) stopped deleting the comments, they have yet to make a n editorial peep about the problem of Democrats and Union sate employees wasting thousands of hours in payroll, with state equipment, to engage in on-line political activity. Not. One. Word.

Public employees who want to engage in political activity should take time off to do so. That happens routinely in New Hampshire, for example, when a member of the governor’s staff takes a leave of absence to work for his or her reelection campaign.
What were New Hampshire taxpayers getting for their money when they paid Mead’s salary? What does any taxpayer, particularly those who are undeclared voters or members of a minority party, get when state employees do the work of political parties on the job? Not anything they’d willingly pay for. The next session of the Legislature should specifically prohibit on-the-job political activity by all state employees.
Great Idea that, suggesting such a thing.  Wish we’d thought of it. (That’s right we did.)

You have to admit that this would have been a great time for some balanced editorializing; to mention of Dick de Seve, or the almost no longer mysterious Gaia, both Democrat state SEA (SEIU) employees with years of recorded abuse of the taxpayers trust for political purposes, on their very web pages.   But no.  (Not very encouraging coming from the “equality” crowd running the Concord bird cage liner.)

For the record, we agree with the Monitor that “state employees” should not engage in political activity while doing state business.  Now if we could get the Monitor to name all the guilty parties without deference to party affiliation.  That would be something to see.


The ‘Weinergate’ Effect (On Congressional Tweets)

According to Mashable, congressional Tweets are down 30% since the Weinergate debacle unfolded.   The lesson in the aftermath seems to be that less Twitter is better if your day job lands you in the Capitol building.  Either that or 30% of the Tweets coming from the Federal Government’s elected members may be considered of a questionable nature and that activity has been castrated by little Anthony and his tweets.

Democrats decreased their activity only slightly more than that of Republicans, 29% vs the GOP decline of 27%, which didn’t surprise me.  What did surprise me was the actual volume of Tweets from the right.  Republicans are tweeting more than twice as often, before and after the momentous events since memorial day weekend.

This might pose a curious problem for the left.  They used to make fun of Republicans failure to embrace technology and social media.   They even bragged about a technical advantage.  But that gap no longer exists.  With Republicans obviously embracing social media–one of the success stories behind the TEA party and the 2010 landslide–Democrats may have to try to win on issues.

Yeah, that is kind of funny.  Win on issues.  I crack myself up.

Fear not Twitter-sphere. The reality of this decrease can be more easily explained like this.  Most sane people slow down when they pass a car on the side of the road that has been pulled over by a police officer.  (This does not apply in Massachusetts)  It is an acknowledgement that there is a line that can be crossed and that we know people cross it.  We just want to show you that we do know how to drive the speed limit.  (In New Hampshire there is a law requiring it. -slowing down when police or safety vehicles have their lights flashing, I mean.)

But about one-quarter mile after we’ve passed the scene we’ll put the lead back in our foot and get back to business as usual.

Give it a few days.  Congress will be back to its regular allotment of Twits, I mean tweets,  in no time.

Shea-Porter To Face Democrat Primary

The Concord Monitor is reporting that Portsmouth businesswoman Joanne Dowdell intends to challenge former Congresspersonista Carol SEIU-Porter for a shot at Frank Guinta in 2012.

She characterized her political outlook as similar to that of Shea-Porter, saying it would be up to voters to discern the differences.

“I think you would find that ideologically we’re both progressive Democrats,” she said. “This is democracy, from my point of view. This is the process in action, and that will be for voters to decide.”

CSP 2.0.1?

And she says some very amusing things like..

“Washington politicians have been making life harder for families here in New Hampshire and throughout the country,”

We noticed that and responded in November 2010, but being a Democrat Committeewoman at large, and as a major Obama-Zombie, does CSP 2.0.1 want us to believe she had no idea that her party did that on purpose?

Dowdell said she was not ready to commit to specific policy positions but intends to speak extensively with residents of the district to learn about their concerns.

“I’ll know better when I get out and talk to them and listen to what they have to say,” she said.

Maybe we’ll get the “I am a blank canvass” shtick?  I am, what people make me out to be.  Sure, but all the roads lead to top-down, state-controlled, central planning.

For those unfamiliar, the left-wing salad-bar-policy-buffet is a progressive core-value; until she’s told what talking points to use to advance the current set of feelings about the next best path to socialism, by someone above her pay grade, she won’t have the slightest idea what to tell you she believes.  But we already know.  She says she is just like Carol.  That makes her a Marxist pawn of the party leadership.

So the next question is, is this a real challenge or is there some other game afoot?  Is Dowdell meant to play extremist so CSP looks dull and moderate by comparison?  Or can we expect some kind of massive, left wing cat-fight? And what will all of Carol’s doting fans do? (They love her so.)

I can’t wait to watch and find out.

CSP 2.01’s (Dowdell’s campaign donor records

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

No Labels – Why are All Their “Leaders” Leftists?

How about More Left, less right, forward toward liberalism?No Labels, the latest of many left wing funded efforts to drag the right into the middle and the middle leftward, is looking for you to help them spread their message.  But before you drop your values, abandon your principles, and jump into the center, you might want to know something about their latest pitchman, or should I say woman, Catherine “Kiki” McLean.

Catherine is hailed as a “Founding Leader” of No Labels, a group on a stated quest to fight hyper-partisanship, but she is promoting a middle of which she has never demonstrably been a part.

From the Bi-Partisan Policy center: (and here)

During the 2008 election season, McLean served as a senior advisor to the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign and frequently appeared as an on-air surrogate for the Obama for America campaign.

Catherine worked strategy for John Kerry in 2004

She was the press secretary for Presidential Candidate Al Gore.

Kiki is a former communications director for the Democrat National Committee, and has been a national Spokesman for the Democrat Party.

She was press secretary and adviser to Tipper Gore during the 1992 general election where she supported Gore’s role..and was on the presidential transition team.

So you would be right to question what this “Leader” considers the common good or the shared goals of a bi-partisan nation, when her bread has always been buttered from the left, by left wing leaders, and the promotion of progressive socialist policy, through hyper partisan politicians, willing to ignore laws and intimidate opponents to keep power.

Catherine “No Labels” McLean also has an extensive donation history, call them bipartisan Hallmark cards of appreciation with pictures of dead presidents on them.  And it is only Bipartisan if you mean “both kinds of democrats.”  But they are all democrats.  “Obscure” democrats like John Kerry, John Dingell, Dick Gephardt, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menendez, Hillary Clinton, Robert Casey, and Kirsten Gillibrand.  In fact, the closest Kiki “No Labels” gets to an independent donation in the left wing firmament is Joe Lieberman when he was a democrat and again while he was still a democrat running as an independent.

So as you consider the notion that Kiki is promoting a new “third way,” away from hyper-partisan politics, just remember the company she keeps, and the candidates and causes she funds, and then ask yourself if her real motivation is to empower some mythological bi-partisan middle, or to continue pushing the center leftward by hiding the labels, or in typical Orwellian fashion, renaming them.

Twitter @nhstevemacd

Big Ben, Parliament

Cheesburger....Rumor has it Mr. Obama gave a speech yesterday about something. I didn’t watch it and with good reason.    Been there, done that.  Two faced, self contradicting, tired, and repetitive.  Put another way, Big Ben, Parliament.

Nothing (new) to see here, just move along.  It’s like that family party you go to.  You know the one.  Same people, same food, same conversations. Uncle Joe always nods off.  Aunt Nancy looks like she starched her face then took a box of happy pills.  And Cousin Barry, well he just goes on and on but it’s just another skeleton without any substance, or maybe the parts to a skeleton, or better yet the directions to a store where you might find the parts, but no instructions on how to put it together.  (After which we must then find something of substance to attach to that.)  That was Obama’s speech.  Like I said; Big Ben, Parliament.

But plenty of other people did take one for the team.  They suffered through it, and they had plenty to say about it.  So for your reading enjoyment and mine, I have curated content from around the internet, about the speech.

Moe Lane- Red State “I am *done* with President Obama”

Democrats: cut the President out of the loop.  His presence in this discussion insults both parties at this point.  Send him off to a permanent round of golf games and trips to various parts of the country:

Allahpundit- Hot Air

Speaking of being kneecapped, Robert Gates found out only yesterday that one of the big “ideas” in Obama’s framework of an outline of a plan was to squeeze defense for extra savings.

And also here:

Beyond the obligatory calls for wringing the fat from defense spending and taxing the inexhaustible rich, which even some big media sources openly acknowledge won’t solve anything, his central idea is to somehow control health-care spending, presumably by performing the Jedi mind trick on doctors coast to coast to get them to lower costs.

Victor Davis Hansen -The Corner

The president gave the sort of scare speech he not long ago warned against, and blasted the income-tax rates he not long ago agreed were necessary — in a context in which he has just presented a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit of the sort he now says is unsustainable, and has warned about recklessly voting against raising the debt ceiling in a fashion that he himself had once done, in a larger landscape in which he had once damned attacking Middle East countries in optional wars, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, intercepts, wiretaps, Predators, and leaving troops in Iraq, and then embraced or expanded all that and more (this list is infinite and includes everything from drilling to campaign financing to earmarks).

John – Powerline

If Obama wants to make a serious debt reduction proposal, it has to be presented in detail, in budgetary form, so that it can be analyzed properly and scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Obama hasn’t done that; instead, he purports to shave trillions off the national debt with breathtaking insouciance:

Bryan Preston – PJ Tattler

Spending reductions in the tax code…that’s what President Obama called the thing that we commonly call “tax cuts” in his speech today.

Clive Crook – The Atlantic

There was no sign of anything worth calling a plan to curb borrowing faster than in the budget. He offered no more than a list of headings under which $4 trillion of deficit reduction (including the $2 trillion already in his budget) might be found–domestic non-security spending, defense, health costs, and tax reform. Fine, sure. But what he said was devoid of detail. He spent more of his time stressing what he would not agree to than describing clear proposals of his own.

More words, more contradictions, same old tired rhetoric…and no plan.  Someone else will figure that out.  He’s just the idea guy.  But after someone else figures it all out, he’ll be back to take the credit.

 

 

Twitter @nhstevemacd

 

 

 

 

 

Obama 2012

The Right To Your Money: Nothing ‘Fair’ About It.

Tax Dollar Black HoleThe Granite State Fair Tax Coalition, discovering that it’s “percentage of income model” argument against property taxes really applies to all things, and that lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income on everything,  (a problem resolved through hard work and perseverance to which we apparently do not have a right) has announced that it is looking for a way to make “Rich BastardsTM” pay more for everything.

One fun example?

How about Marriage.  Now that we’ve determined that Marriage is a civil right, (unless you are too young, too closely related, are already married, to uncivil to be or stay married, or want to remain single) why does a decent wedding (or any wedding) have to cost low income workers as much as 100% of their annual income while “Rich BastardsTM” only have to pay 25% to as little as 2% of theirs?  The answer is of course a Statewide wedding tax on higher income wage earners to subsidize the constitutionally protected right of marriage–because you can’t help who you fall in love with.

The plan could create a State Bureau of Weddings and Funerals, staffed by at least a dozen bureaucrats, (with taxpayer supported wages, benefits, pensions, office space, paid vacations, supplies, and protest signs that actually come with sick notes attached; for days when they need to go the State House and make demands of the taxpayers elected-officials on matters of workers rights etc,).  These fine individuals would be charged with handling questions and processing the paperwork and fees related to the weddings and funerals tax placed upon job creators, and the Rich Bastard population in general, (“Rich” to be defined by the collectors of the tax based on their perception of revenue needed) for the distribution of said revenues to those less fortunate seeking lavish weddings that have nothing to do with love, everything to do with impressing people whom you never see, and who are really just there for the free meal, and with any luck, an open bar.

One potential issue to the new Bureau’s mandate, however, is the rights of single people who would not benefit from the tax, or maybe this is just a rhetorical device on my part to segue into my next sarcastic rant.

Choice being the watchword of the left, the right to marriage must also create a right to not be married and not just through the right of divorce.  So the right to co-habitate, to “habitate” with a co-dependent (on or off site relationship), to simply participate in the hook up culture engaging in the equivalent of pre-marital polygamy, (poly-habitate/habituate) also known as pre or post marital anti-monogamy, media sanctioned extra-marital intercourse (former democrat president), or even the rights of 40 year old adolescents with Dorito-stained lips and thumbs the size of biceps from playing video games in their moms basements (losers), must also be protected equally.

In the interests of meeting all these diverse and interrelated ‘rights’ GSFTC suggests that we also add an income tax, a bit of eminent domain taking from your labor-landscape.  With an income tax the state can create an even larger bureau of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats (wages, benefits, pensions, signs and sick notes included), to control, collect, and regulate you so as to provide state lawmakers with a much larger pool of revenues from which to determine whom is most deserving of whatever is it a majority of them can agree to is either a right or an injustice deserving your money at any given time.

This pool will not actually pay for any of that though; it will exist in terminal inadequacy, in perpetuity, to leverage debt-spending because they could never collect it fast enough with all those spending priorities, they also need it to cover the swelling interest payments on the debt as we decline into bankruptcy.

You need broad taxes to collect that kind of money; taxes that you won’t really feel, (like you feel a huge tax bill every six months). They are a critical component to building an expansive, unaffordable government that no one sees until it is too late.  Just look at all the states that use them, and the Federal government as well. On the brink or over it.

This failed state model is the result of the genetic defects of left wing thinking. Misusing other peoples property is a priority. But if they have to petition the populace every single time they want more money to “fix” something, following all the stupid rules in a constitution could add months or years to the process of separating you from enough of your income, and they just don’t want to wait that long. So a failed tax structure on income, which is actually more volatile than property, has to be a cure–because it is actually less transparent; you just don’t feel it the way you do a property tax bill. And if you need more you inch up the tax rate. So all the GSFTC really wants is to make your taxes less visible and easier to abuse.

One more unfortunate problem with the plan, which GSFTC will not discuss truthfully, as if anything they have to say has any truth to it now: property taxes will not go down, the new tax will go up, and there will be more 40 year old adolescents with Dorito-stained lips and thumbs the size of biceps (from playing video games in their moms basements), exercising their “right” to live off their parents.  But that’s supposed to be progress.

Political Incivility is Not the New Hampshire Way

Got CivilityPolitical Incivility is Not the New Hampshire Way” is the title of Jeanne Shaheen’s Op-Ed in the Morning Sunday News.  I can only assume she is not familiar with her own State Democrat Party leadership, some of the people who have helped her get elected like Kathy Sullivan, and others; people who are on the record saying any number of uncivil things.  And we’re not even talking about implications of cross-walk manslaughter, nuking Japan, wishing people dead, Koch brother hate, or anything the average public sector union worker may have uttered.  And what about Republican’s being like the Taliban?

Seems to me that there is a very healthy supply of political incivility in New Hampshire, so what Rodney King like, “can’t we all just get along,” paint by the talking points numbers mural is Shaheen creating?

She is setting the narrative for her next Senate race.  Jeanne is trying hard to track toward the center in anticipation of a reelection battle.  She is tilling the earth and planting little placebo-seeds of moderateness to sell herself as a middle of the road, small-government is just alright with me, independent-voter attracting kind of a democrat, even though she is just another spineless rubber-stamp liberal progressive.  But she’d like to be able to claim to have long been orbiting safely in the event horizon–away from the gravity of left wing extremism in her party–to attract the mythological “civil center,” but her voting record (91% with Harry Reid) and her donors (Emily’s List, Lawyers, Lobbyists, leadership, and Liberals) will make it hard to take that seriously.

She need to distance herself from the debacle in Wisconsin, and left wing hate all over, despite heavy union donors to her campaign.  She’s been bought out by Emily’s List so the abortion ugliness is also an albatross around her neck.  And her support of Obama and the legions of uncivil, unpopular nonsense he is a part of also weigh heavy.

So she’ll have plenty of money and plenty of time, to keep the search engines filled with political platitudes.  But you can bet there will be some uncivil behavior come re-elections time, sanctioned by her own democrat party, right here in New Hampshire.  It’s guaranteed.  Democrats can’t help themselves.  Which is why this op-ed is the funniest thing you’ll find in the Sunday paper.

 

 

 

 

Democrats, Frat Boys, And Pimps, Oh My!

focus people, focus!When did the vagina become the locus of all women’s health?  It’s so important to democrats that they would shut down the government, force parks to close, leave millions in limbo wondering how they will be affected, and even cut off pay for active military personnel just to protect a sub-particle of the entire federal budget universe for one little niche provider of “vagina related services.”

That sounds a bit extreme to me.  Extreme because Planned Parenthood (PP) has admitted publicly that it does not even need the tax dollars.  Obscene because there are over 20,000 Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 99,000 family and general practitioners, and hundreds of thousands of doctors, specialists, and nurse practitioners, all of whom are qualified (more qualified?) to keep the entire woman healthy, even the sex parts the left seems obsessed with.

But hey, they are democrats, right?  So this is not rally that strange a position to take.

The left wing has invested decades arguing that women are not sex objects while teaching them to be sex objects, the side effects of which can be resolved by a major democrat party donor–the abortion industry.  They are also the ones who told us that Obamacare would cover all our health needs, especially those most likley to use PP’s “women’s health services,” (except for mammograms which Obamacare’s coverage delays at great risk to women’s health).  But now they insist that we cannot take a few million tax dollars away from a multimillion dollar, international business that does not need it, for fear that women’s health will be forever compromised?

So the democrat view of women’s health differs little from that of a drunken frat boy.  Or even a sober frat boy.   And that’s an apt comparison, because Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of abortions, which have nothing to do with women’s health unless there is a medical complication.  To a democrat, and a frat boy, however, pregnancy is a medical complication; the internal possession of life is a crime against the social life for which Planned Parenthood is, apparently, the only cure.

Lord knows you can’t get birth control or condoms or screenings from anywhere on the planet but Planned Parenthood right?  I mean really?  Oh, wait.  You can just not at taxpayer expense.  And premarital sex is in the constitution.  Sex in general actually, you know, that whole domestic tranquility thing?  Viagra for inmates and public union hacks oh, my.

Right.

So the democrats were prepared to shut it all down to defend one big, international rent seeker.  To pigeonhole women’s health issues to sex parts and intercourse.  And to defend a major campaign contributor (the abortion industry) at all costs?  Using women’s vagina’s for cash?  Doesn’t that make them a bunch of pimps?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: