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






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.

Two Congressman And A Free Throw


DateMonday, February 28, 2011 at 05:15AM

HR 1 The US House just finished it’s work on HR1, cleaning up after democrats who in 2010 abrogated yet another  obligation when they found themselves incapable of writing the budget they really wanted right before an election.

The liberal-progressives wanted more spending but that was not politically advantageous.  And since the single driving-force behind all Democrat decisions is politics the budget got relegated to the back of the bus, where the electorate’s short attention spans were meant to forget that democrats were never fiscally conscious representatives–they just tried to play them on the campaign trail.

But avoiding the high profile budget battle was more evidence that they had something to hide. The Democrat House majority was appropriately sedated and placed under observation, while the Senate saw minor adjustments but no change in leadership.  So the process of changing our spending ways would still have to go through a Democrat controlled Senate and across the desk of a President who thinks the words “spending cuts” are just a rhetorical flourish used to provide cover for more spending.

Obama’s budget is proof enough of that.

But Obama only proposes a budget.  The House is in charge of spending.  So the new Republican congress went to the back seat of the Hopey-changey bus and picked up the budget obligations abandoned by the 111th congress.  This wwas a free shot at changing the fiscal direction of the country before writing their own first official budget, which was not due until later in 2011.  It was a gimme, a free throw, but one that had to survive the democrat Senate and the Spender in Chief.

So how did it turn out?

The House Republicans took their free throw and settled on $61,000,000,000.00 (billion) dollars in cuts which included votes on 21 amendments to reduce or eliminate some non-security spending. Not bad for a budget that should have been written by a democrat majority House, and a respectable down-payment on the 100 billion promised for their first official budget–though plenty of folks will still be unhappy about it.

To add to that unhappiness,(or not) we have the results of the 21 proposed amendments to cut non-security funding. (thank you very much) filtered those votes and created both a table you can filter and a pdf.   The table show us how each member voted on the 21 cuts as a percentage of the total number of votes and the pdf lists how they voted on each of the individual amendments.

Looking at New Hampshire we can see that congressman Charlie Bass supported 33% of the proposed budget cutting amendments while congressman Guinta supported 76% of them.  That’s a rather wide margin, a tale of two congressman perhaps, worthy of your individual attention should it interest you.

Also worth noting; according to Heritage 95 House Democrats voted against ever single non-security cut, while another 45 opposed all of the cuts but one.  That certainly puts a fresh coat of “something” on the face of the Democrat party when it comes to their “belt tightening rhetoric.”  (That something is brown, by the way, and it smells “offal.”)

So feel free to follow the links, print the report and sift the data at your leisure.  I have provided below the list of 21 amendments referenced courtesy of Heritage.


The spending cuts include the following 21 amendments:

1)    Eliminate $34 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center (Flake);
2)    Cut $10 million from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Latta);
3)    Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, saving $324.4 million (Duncan-SC);
4)    Cut $50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Biggert);
5)    Cut $70 million in energy efficiency programs at the Energy Department (Latta);
6)    Eliminate $35 million in funding for land acquisition at various agencies (Lummis);
7)    Cut $64 million from EPA science and technology programs (Flake);
8)    Cut $8 million from EPA environmental programs and management (Pompeo);
9)    Cut $10 million from EPA state and tribal assistance grants (Reed);
10) Cut $7.4 million for forestry programs at the U.S. Forest Service (Pompeo);
11) Cut $20.6 million from the National Endowment for the Arts (Walberg);
12) Eliminate $4.5 million in funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Program (Canseco);
13) Eliminate $15 million in funding for the Presidio Trust Fund (Reed);
14) Cut $100 million from Community Development Block Grants (Flake);
15) Eliminate $233.4 million in funding for the National Labor Relations Board (Price-GA);
16) Eliminate $42.7 million in funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace (Weiner);
17) Eliminate $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center (Canseco);
18) Cut $211.2 million in funding from multilateral assistance through international financial institutions (Heller);
19) Cut $446.9 million in Amtrak funding (Sessions);
20) Cut all funding by 5.5% and legislative branch spending by 11%, with certain exemptions, saving $22
billion (Blackburn);
21) Cut all funding down to fiscal year 2006 levels, with certain exemptions, saving $34 billion (Mulvaney).


H/T, Hot Air

Cross Posted

Merrimack Starts A TEA Party

Town of Merrimack NHFormer Merrimack Town councilor Mike Malzone has decided he has had enough.  What tipped him over the edge?  An 11 pm town meeting decision to implement pay as you throw after just about everyone had gone home.

I’ve met Mike.  A few years back when there was a very brief effort to get a Tax and Spending Cap petition started, Mike was leading the charge.  It was a short charge.  New rules implemented in a different dark-of-night, no-one-was -looking moment changed the filing requirements. I believe that was done up in Concord by the then-democrat majority. You needed a good deal more signatories on your petition committee and the filing dates had changed.

We did not have time to adjust, and so the effort died.  An attempt to get it added by the council failed. I was the only resident to speak for the effort at another town council meeting.

But Mike continued to do the yeoman’s work–showing up at meetings and paying attention.  And now he is leading an activist group.

Merrimack TEA will have a weekly cable access show called Merrimack Tea TV, according to an article by Kimberly Houghton on the front page of this mornings Union Leader.  The program will cover issues of local interest in Merrimack, with a focus on how taxpayer dollars are spent in town and nationally.

Merrimack TEA also has a facebook page, which I encourage you all to like and support, even if you do not live in the town.  Issues like Pay to throw- which is where you buy Town approved trash bags that you must use to dispose of trash at the town dump–are only the beginning.

Take the school budget for example.  While it is not specifically a Town Council issue, the cost of a K-12 education in Merrimack is now over $15,000.00 per student per year.  Somehow, I think the idea of government efficiency will eventually have to find its way into that budget because it represents the single biggest out of control expense the taxpayers face.  And if it is not an efficiency issue, then we need to look at wage and benefits cuts.  That is far too much to be paying to send a kid to a public school.  You can send them to college for that.

I wish Mike luck, and support, from GraniteGrok, from the NHRVC, and as a resident of the town.

Cross Posted
Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

Norelli Tries To Feed You The Blue Pill (again)

Democrats latest rallying cry is that we can’t cut the state budget if it means downshifting costs on the towns.  But they didn’t seem to care too much about all the downshifting when they were doing it.

But that is what you get when you let left wing clowns run your state.  Larsen/Norelli/Suckley Investment Advisers Inc, the Fat Cat Executives of the Tax and Spend Democrat Party of New Hampshire, gave the state government a one billion dollar bonus ($1,000,000,000.00) on the backs of the towns and the taxpayers during a job shedding, wage declining recession.

And we are now to believe this concerns them?  The only thing that concerns the Democrats is if and how they can blame someone else for their destruction, and find a way back into power so that the lefts only solution to a billion dollar deficit can be enacted as swiftly as possible.

The democrats one trick donkey is to create debt so they can raise taxes.  The debt is intentional, the complete loss of political power in the state however was not.  So as the newly elected Republican majority, which has not chosen to create more taxes to deal with the debt they inherited, is looking for ways to trim spending to stop the bleeding, the democrats are content to cry and take pot shots.  So the brilliant financial experts who created the debts are aghast at efforts to cut spending–any spending.

One of the “experts,” ex-speaker Terie “Billion Dollar Deficit” Norelli, (D-Madoff Investments) commenting in the Union Leader on the latest House GOP budget/revenue estimates and the Republican plan to start by cutting the state budget by 2%…

…. scoffed at the GOP plan, saying the tax cuts amount to $1.22 per resident.

She (also) said the plan will force costs onto local communities. “It is not right to balance the budget on the backs of local property taxpayers,” she said. “But Bill O’Brien’s plan would do just that. It will cause unnecessary harm to taxpayers, seniors, and our most vulnerable citizens.”

Really?  So is a $1.22/resident less government a meaningless press trick (we’re scoffing at that paltry effort), or is it harming taxpayers?  And how does that contrast to the inherited deficit of one-thousand million, that’s one billion (or $1,000,000,000.00) dollars in democrat spending for which there was no New Hampshire money when they spent it the first time, and none in any of the years to follow?

Well that’s not so hard to figure out.  Terie “Billion Dollar Deficit” Norelli downshifted the left wing agenda onto the backs of New Hampshire residents for a cool billion (for starters), which is at a cost of about $750.00 per resident–money we will have to collect off the backs of the towns and taxpayers, seniors, and our most vulnerable citizens.  A billion doesn’t just appear out of thin air, yet the democrats still spent it without caring where it came from.

But they either had to know you would be taxed to pay for the billions or they are the worst fiscal stewards in New Hampshire history and you still have to pay.  That must be what the democrats mean by the “Party of Choice.”  Pick your poison, either way you get screwed.

But Norelli thinks there is another solution.  She and the NHDP have their PR campaign.  It is just like that infamous Blue pill from the movie the Matrix. You swallow it and go back to the illusion of competence under left wing management and forget where this deficit came from.  You can believe, whatever you want to believe. Forget that they lied about their debt and called it a surplus during the election.  Ignore all the cost downshifting they did to make that debt look less like state spending, and more a local problem.   Ignore the creative accounting to hide incompetent money management or all the new taxes and fees you have been paying, or the effort to pass another business tax, a soda tax, or all the efforts to pass broad based taxes.  The only answer to a Billion dollar problem that democrats can see is to keep taxing and Norelli proves it every time she opens her mouth.

To a democrat the only responsible “cut” is to your income in the form of a new tax to pay for more state spending.  If you think that’s not a cram down then you are either in the democrat party or you work in the media.

Republican Study Committee releases list of Budget Cuts

Here’s the List of planned cuts, from House Republicans, that would save 2.5 Trillion over the next 10 years.  (Let the left wing whining begin)


Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

Repeal The “Evergreed” Law

New Hampshire House reps are getting the treatment from the unions and their lackeys on the plan to repeal the state’s Evergreed law.   I’m sure they have a script provided by the unions, which includes a promise not to vote for that State Representative if they dare repeal the law.

(That’s actually ‘evergreen’ by the way, as in more of your green to the unions for ‘ever,’ but my spelling is more apt.)

So how stupid is that?

How many Republican New Hampshire House reps will actually believe that a union member voted for them in the first place?  Not to many.  So let’s call those threats idle and get to the point.

The Evergreed law  screws taxpayers.  It gives automatic wage and benefit increases based on the last approved contract removing any incentive on the part of the unions to negotiate in good faith with a town or city unless it thinks or knows it can do better than the contract it already has.

So even in a recession when incomes and investment values, home values, and even the number of employed are all in decline, state union employees can continue to get wage increases and better benefits while you as taxpayers have to pay for those increases from a diminishing pool of fiscal resources.

It’s evil. It’s cruel.  And it’s going away.

And only a democrat or a RINO would support a law that screws taxpayers like that. 

Cross Posted