Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tracy Saboe]

WOW, how do find time to write all these excellent letters.

You should collect them, and put them in a website at some point (maybe)

Who knows, if you keep at it, perhaps one of the papers might give you a collumn!

Tracy

[RidleyReport]

Thanks Tracy!

Here's one from Dave Mincin in the Monitor:


In your article on Governor Benson's budget plans ("Shadow Budget," Oct. 1), you criticize him for his corporate way of handling government.   I'm sure some of the criticisms are valid; God knows we must watch every politician closely.   But most of what you criticize is really a criticism of limited government and thus an attack on  the very thing both Benson and New Hampshire stand for.

You act as though cuts in government spending were the denial of some birthright.  You seem to think it is a bad thing to reduce the amount of money taken by force from your neighbor.
 Is it so difficult to accept that cuts are the source of our success?   Massachusetts and RI have shown us what happens when you refuse to cut, refuse to keep the spending genie in its bottle. 

I appreciate the fact that you are not advocating we become exactly like these "welfare states."  But Benson is a man who, more than any other governor in America, has proven his ability to keep us on a different course from theirs, to reduce the power of his own government over your life.   This is such a rare thing as to be almost unique in modern American politics, and we cast it aside at our great loss. 

[RidleyReport]

news@seacoastonline.com

This is an open letter to the Herald; print it if you like:

In response to your opinion piece about state funding for drug treatment...congratulations!  You're halfway there.  I appreciate your recognition that prison isn't the way to handle junkies.   I also appreciate your search for less expensive ways to address drug abuse.  But you have not addressed the least expensive of them all:  

Why do druggies end up in taxpayer-funded jails?  Occasionally it's because of drug-induced paranoia.   But usually it's because they can't afford the drug they want.  Prohibition has driven contraband prices artificially high, so junkies resort to crime to fund their habits. Prohibition itself (funded by you on penalty of ruin) is the source of the problem.  This should be no surprise; most problems the government tries to solve get worse.    

The solution is to simply follow the example set by Holland.  End state enforcement of most drug laws, and let the prices come down.   Let New Hampshire residents decide for themselves whether to abuse their own bodies.  But never, ever use state money to help those who make the wrong choice.

That's the way it worked a hundred years ago...you could get mind altering drugs from your pharmacist, yet we had very little drug addiction.  It's time to look to our own past and to the uneventful streets of Amsterdam.   That is where we will find the way out.



vdr

[Tracy Saboe]

The only thing is, this new Welfare program, could (like all government programs) expand and morph into something potentially even more dangerous.

Tracy

[RidleyReport]

 
Dave Mincin LTE in Nashua Telegraph:
 
Hats off to the folks in Nashua like your reader Bob Mosscrop who are speaking out against the city's abuse of eminent domain. I'm referring specifically to its attempt to take over the utility company Pennichuck (or, as Mosscrop puts it, "steal" the place). When you make it hard for Nashua politicians to take over Pennichuck you send a message to the "domain Nazis" in every New Hampshire city: Taking over unblighted private property against the owner's wishes is something you do at your political peril.

[RidleyReport]

Dear folks at the Monitor:

In the Monitor's article on the second gubernatorial debate, Governor Benson's spendocrat opponent John Lynch attacks Benson's prescription drug site, the one that helps NH residents get cheaper medicine.  He calls it a "gimmick."  Far from being a gimmick, this spunky little site...conceived in some courage and operating at no significant taxpayer expense, goes right to the heart of what Benson is all about, what makes him special.

Benson had to go pretty far out on a limb to bring this site into existence, defying the Federal government itself.  Washington had been trying to stop you and me from getting these cheaper drugs from Canada, probably trying to protect the fatcat drug companies.  Benson told them to shove off, and they did.  That tells me he operates in keeping with our state's independent streak and is able to prevail over Federal meddling.

Lynch claims the site was too easy to set up, says anyone could have done it.  If he gets into office, perhaps he will remedy this situation by making things more complicated.  In any case, an average citizen doesn't have the kind of bully pulpit a governor does, to get the word out about things like this medicine site.  Benson used his bully pulpit, rather than tax money, to improve our options a bit.  Would that every governor operated that way instead of shoving new taxes and spending down our throats like Lynch wants to.
 
With Benson I know what I'm getting:  An imperfect man who looks to taxpayer-friendly solutions first and it ready to defy the authoritarians in DC to make it happen.   That's as good as it gets in a governor.

vdr

[RidleyReport]

Dear folks at the Union Leader:

Regarding your editorial on stem cell funding ("The Real Issue is Government Coercion," mid-October), *thank you!* You folks really get it! The sad thing is how many papers do not.

Hardly anyone these days seems to acknowledge the simple but critical difference between voluntary funding and coercive (taxpayer) funding. It is the source of our suffering as a nation, the fact that so many now assume it is okay to take a third of their neighbor's wages and dump it into government programs against the neighbor's will. Pacifists forced to pay for the Iraq war. Pro-lifers forced to pay for embryo destruction. All of us forced to fund the enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws, in effect bankrolling the partial disarmament of our own homes.

Someday, somewhere, people will figure out a way to fund more of these things with less coercion. Right now hardly anyone is even making the attempt; with the partial exception of Governor Benson and his allies...who've taken modest steps in this direction at great political peril. The payoff is already showing as New Hampshire pulls further ahead in the nation, but do we recognize our own success?


vdr

[RidleyReport]

Mike Lorrey LTE for Telegraph:


Why I'm voting for Governor Benson

G.K. Chesterton once said the most amazing, exciting thing that can happen with a philosophy is to have someone actually step up and put it into action, to just DO it.

Though all politicians must be watched closely, and all have their flaws...I'm generally happy with Benson. This is because he has taken a proven successful philosophy (limited government) and DONE it.

I think a lot about the way virtually all governors and presidents promise to cut spending but never do. An executive brancher who actually practices limited government, rather than just preaching it, is a rare treasure.

And this guy is the rarest of the rare. He's kept spending down regardless of the political cost, because he understands that this is the source of New Hampshire's prosperity. No other major governor or president I know of, not even Reagan himself, was able and willing to do this. But Governor Benson is, because people here "get it." We recognize that spending more is the fastest way to become like the other states who spend more. And there is not one other state in this Union we would want to be more like, all things considered. We're the best, in part because of politicians like Benson who, whatever their strengths or flaws, have bequeathed to us the smallest tax burden in the lower 48.

Since he became governor the unemployment rate has dropped from 5.1% to 3.7%, his own office's budget is down 10%, there have been no new taxes or tax increases, there is a projected $9 million dollar budget surplus and New Hampshire has just placed #1 in the nation for highest median income.

These things are not all just because of Benson, but the fact that he has kept the government out of the way...that is a large part of what has enabled them to happen. We cast his limited government approach away at our peril.

[RidleyReport]

Dave Mincin LTE in Telegraph:
 
 
In response to your guest commentary by Senator Burt Cohen Oct. 8:
 
I don't appreciate his tax-and-spend voting record, but I very much *do* appreciate his opposition to No Child Left Behind. On this he is right...the Feds have no business imposing much of anything on New Hampshire, certainly not some "education" scheme.
 
However the Senator, having boarded this "freedom train" seems unwilling to take it to its logical destination. If top-down social engineering is bad coming from the Bush administration, it is also bad when coming from your local legislators. And Mr. Cohen, though not the worst, has imposed more social engineering than I would want on my conscience. The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, an organization that rates state politicians on their freedom-friendliness, gives him only a 29% rating. That means when given the chance to vote between individual freedom and government control, he picked government 71% of the time.
 
Again, 29% is better than zero, but his 71% authoritarian-friendly votes have been a threat to the continuance of small government in our whole state. I would encourage him to dish out more individual-friendly votes where that 29% came from....however I understand he's leaving the Senate, and I am 71% glad!

[RidleyReport]

Mike Lorrey LTE for Herald:

In response to your editorial on Oct. 11, "Overregulation Caused Flu Vaccine Shortage," I'd like to say "woo hoo!" The Herald gets it!  At least sometimes.  You hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that busybody Federal involvement in the vaccine industry brought us this year's flu vaccine shortage.   

But, having boarded "freedom train," why not ride it all the way to the station?   You're able to perceive the nature of this problem, but are you prepared to support the closest thing we have to a solution in New Hampshire?   I'm referring to the free marketeer who leads this state, that guy you are always attacking...Craig Benson.   

Governors don't have much power over federal vaccine policy, and Benson's reaction to the current shortage hasn't been as market-oriented as I would have hoped.  But at least Benson has helped increase the free market component of pharmaceutical sales.  The best example is his prescription drug site at nh.gov/governor (click on the upper left link), which defies the Feds and helps us get better drug prices via Canada.   He's also resisted the solution our local Spendocrats are pushing:  more regulation of pharmaceutical companies.   Evil or not, drug companies can't be forced to stay in business here; if we overregulate them they'll just walk away and add to the list of shortages we suffer at the hands of Washington.

Anyway I hope you folks will start wearing Oct 11th's free market approach to every issue and candidate you "attend."  It looks good on you! 

[BlueLu]

This letter appeared in the October 21, 2004, "Peterborough Transcript".  It was inspired by a series of left-liberal editorials and LTEs in the "Transcript", as is typical for that paper.  They do print occasional conservative responses, and I thought that the way this letter goes about making its point  and criticising DC Republicans might win some credit toward being a counterpoint piece, and sure enough it got in.  I sent it with the title: Benson Admin. Like NH Town Votes, which was changed to:

At least Benson's democratic

Love him or hate him, Gov. Benson's administration produces results more like NH town meetings than other recent administrations.  A lot of people disagree with the budget-slashing governor, but if you look at the projects and outlays that New Hampshire towns actually approve in the "most democratic process in the world", Benson looks like a big spender.
 
New Ipswich's snow plow/sander truck decision a couple of months ago exemplifies the Yankee thrift in government that results from local, participatory democracy.   The people of the town had twice voted down buying a new truck, so the selectmen honored the will of the people, repairing the truck rather than buying a new one -- a truck that city officials questioned the worth of repairing.  But in a state government the whole atmosphere is different, even in Concord, the most fiscally conservative state capital.  State officials are insulated from the immediate feedback and call-to-account-by-your-neighbors that is seen in town meetings.  State officials can dream up plans to get them into history books as public benefactors, and get themselves and their cronies quid pro quo.  But usually, the details of those plans are so expensive or damaging to individual and town rights, that a town meeting would never approve them.  For voters in state elections, it is not worth the time to understand the issues in enough detail to effectively disapprove.  And once people become dependent on the state programs, how can you cut them?
 
Whether you like his talk, at least Benson walks the walk.  Granite Staters know where Benson stands and what he intends to do, which is more than can be said for the country club Republicans in Washington, D.C., who are currently running the most insulated, undemocratic, and not-coincidentally, most expensive and intrusive, level of our government.

Edit:  Improved spacing.

[RidleyReport]

Nice work Blue.

[RidleyReport]

Dave Mincin LTE for Herald:


(note to Herald:  You can publish this if you like without further communication between us; also I'm submitting two versions of the letter; the second one is not as well worded but it removes the phrase  "everyone gets screwed."  I  don't know what your policy is on the use of that term.  Thanks!)

 Version 1

Will the Real Herald Please Stand Up!


You guys must have two completely different people writing under the name of "Portsmouth Herald," one with good intentions, another who understands the unintented consequences
such intentions generate.  Or perhaps you have one person with a split personality!

On Oct. 11 "Portsmouth Herald" criticizes the FedGov for overinvolvement in the vaccine industry and loosing upon us the current flu shot shortage.  That would presumably be the "unintended consequences" person.  But just three days later "Portsmouth Herald" criticises the Feds for *under*involvement in the heating oil industry.  Though these are different industries, the same market principles apply to each.   Where governments intrude, everyone gets screwed!

In the case of vaccines, government price fixing makes it unprofitable for companies to produce the shots, creating shortages.   You correctly articulate that. 

But when it comes to heating oil assistance, suddenly more government is the obvious answer, so obvious that your editorial on the subject doesn't even bother to explain why this is any of the government's business, especially the Federal government.   I assume this is an editorial written by Mr. or Ms. Good Intentions.

Where is force-funded Federal charity authorised in the Constitution?  To what extent does accepting such stolen money compromise our Constitutional autonomy as a state?   And why would handouts of heating oil work where handouts of vaccine have failed?

Anyway, my vote is for your writer who understands unintended consequences.   The other one seems hell-bent on making us all supplicants of the District of Coercion.



Version 2

Will the Real Herald Please Stand Up!


You guys must have two completely different people writing under the name of "Portsmouth Herald," one with good intentions, another who understands the unintented consequences
such intentions generate.  Or perhaps you have one person with a split personality!

On Oct. 11 "Portsmouth Herald" criticizes the FedGov for overinvolvement in the vaccine industry and loosing upon us the current flu shot shortage.  That would presumably be the "unintended consequences" person.  But just three days later "Portsmouth Herald" criticises the Feds for *under*involvement in the heating oil industry.  Though these are different industries, the same market principles apply to each.   When governments try to fix a problem through market intervention, they usually make it worse.

In the case of vaccines, government price fixing makes it unprofitable for companies to produce the shots, forcing many of them out of the market, creating near-monopolies and shortages.   You correctly articulate that. 

But when it comes to heating oil assistance, suddenly more government meddling is the obvious answer, so obvious that your editorial on the subject doesn't even bother to explain why this is any of the government's business, especially the Federal government.   I assume this is an editorial written by Mr. or Ms. Good Intentions.

Where is force-funded Federal charity authorised in the Constitution?  To what extent does accepting such stolen money compromise our Constitutional autonomy as a state?   And why would coercively funded handouts of heating oil work where handouts of vaccine have failed?

Anyway, my vote is for your writer who understands unintended consequences.   The other one seems hell-bent on making us all supplicants of the District of Coercion.

[RidleyReport]

Mike Lorrey LTE for Monitor:

I read your brief November 14 article about the two "anti-drug" policemen who are facing charges for assaulting a Portsmouth officer in March.  Apparently the two were members of the ill-conceived New Hampshire Drug Task Force.

Dope is for losers, no question about it.  Lots of good cops out there, no question about that either.

But never trust anyone who lives off your tax money then spends all day telling you what you can and can't put in your body.

[RidleyReport]

Dave Mincin's LTE for Union Leader:

I want to thank the Union Leader editorial page staff for fighting to support Commissioner John Stephen's "Granite Care" plan designed to reform Medicaid.   With Spendocrats back in power at the Governor's office, Stephen needs all the support he can get.  It's about time someone tried to reduce the cost of this Medicare boondoggle.

We who still believe in freedom must keep saying this while we have breath:  It is *wrong* to steal from your neighbor, and taxation is theft...even if the goal is care for elderly folks.  The money goes to bureaucrats, nursing homes and seniors - but that does not make it right to steal.

Anything that reduces costs reduces theft. Stephen's plan may be modest and gentle toward the elderly, but it reduces the amount of money stolen for their care...God bless him for that.

sc,  UL, vdm