Paul Hodes

One of the joys of blogging is the anonymous commenters who drop the bottle of Booth's Dry Gin long enough to type something lucid. (Lucid is a stretch)   Most of these word-smiths are probably NHDP staffers who can't find anything better to do while they watch the party lose special election after special election on the road to being sent packing in November.

Remember last October when Paul Hodes tucked tail and ran to avoid an ethics vote that would implicate his democrat committee chariman (here)?  Well that Chairman, Edolphus Towns, has just been implicated in a missrepresentation of details that made Toyota look worse than was actually the case.

Remember how Shaheen didn’t have the sense to use her own parties partisan influence buying combine to turn her rubber-stamp vote for Trotsky care into a complete 12 lane rebuild of I-93 from Salem all the way to Hudson bay?  Well there is subterfuge afoot again in the White House and as usual New Hampshire’s left wing wall flowers either can’t get into the dance, or don’t have their figurative political bra stuffed enough to attract the eye of the people with any real influence. 

Obama has announced a new money pit to shovel your hard earned dollars into.  It's the Climate ministry, a bureaucracy dedicated to hiding the storm clouds of truth that have gathered over the statist obsession with regulating energy.

The Washington times says they will call this massive new bureaucracy "The Climate Service."

Shenanigans with the Department of Education; a cadre of lefty legislators is working an end around to get Homeschooling rules implemented that the legislature just failed to pass.  Apparently the will of elected officials and thousands of residents just isn’t good enough.  So having grown weary of the legislative process of (dare I say it?) reform, it is time to take matters into their own hands. 

My suggestion to them then, is to get out of the legislating business instead.

Liberty-denier Paul Hodes is playing his populist violin in today's UL about campaign finance.  But he’s being a hypocrat.  Mr. Hodes  is up to his eyeballs in money from lawyers, big banks, and Unions. He’s also big on cash from congressional PAC’s all of whom get their dollars from industry, finance, Unions, and special interests.  (see list of links below) Yet he still feels comfortable declaring that the recent supreme court decision will corrupt politics with money.   

Someone remind Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter that they voted for all the government spending from January 2007 through all of 2008.  They own it.  All of it.  They made no effort to slow it, cut it, or stop it.  This applies to every democrat in the House prior to Obama, so when Obama reminds us about the "deficit he inherited" it's the property of every House democrat from whence fiscal and budgetary policy must flow.  (I beleive they even helped overturn a veto or two so they could spend more.)

When government actions result in lost income or the promise of lost income, that is a tax.  So the left wing meme that there have been no taxes on Americans in the age of Obama is a lie.  The government doubled the money supply diluting the value of existing wages and savings at the very real risk of inflation.  That is a conscious act of government that devalues your labor and reduces your buying power.  This acts as a tax on labor and as a tax on the cost of living which would not otherwise exist without the consent of your government. 

So I’m reading the UL article on Senator Gregg’s support for a deficit reduction commission.  And I’m thinking, what a stupid idea.  It’s another layer of government added to the committees, and sub committees, and regardless of what the commission does, and no matter whether you need an up or down vote, the slimy bastards in DC are still going to lard up every other bill as they always have.  Besides, the only way democrats know how to cut the deficit is to raise taxes, so all Gregg is doing is inventing a tax raising commission. 

Earmark reform is probably the least effective way to approach a spending problem in Washington, particularly on the recent defense of such appropriations (by democrats) as simply pointing already spent dollars “in the right direction,” but it is populist.  So if you are running for the US Senate it might behoove you—in the face of what appeared to be a stunning fiscal policy shift in a prominently left wing electorate just to the south of New Hampshire—to not just taste the blood in the water, but to stop the bleeding before your floundering campaign suffers the same fate.

I try not to make fun of people who write in to the paper but sometimes I can’t help myself.  Gary Patton from Hampton writes, in a letter to the editor in today’s UL, that accusations of rubber-stamping by Rep Shea-Porter are unfounded.  He points to her objection to TARP and the Afghan surge.  He then posits the notion that a Republican would be a rubber stamp for the right, as all of the Republicans in the House voted against the estate tax, the stimulus, Obama’s trillion dollar budget, and health care.

As some of you venture out to mark your ballots in one of three elections taking place today, make some time to consider a different vote.  Come November, you will have an opportunity to pass judgement on your representatives to Washington.  And that vote will send a message about the how they used the power you gave them.

And what have they been doing?

The front page of the Sunday Union Leader reminds us of Governor Lynch's fence-sitting credentials.  He is unhappy with the deal Nebraska (and other states) got, probably because New Hampshire didn't get one too.  My take is that Mr. Lynch is not against a loss of states rights, or an increase in federal dollars required to fund whatever the feds decide,  but he is leary of being the governor if the state has to pay for it on his watch.

So he's really not sitting on a fence is he.

Further along in the article the congressional delegation chimes in.

More good news on Paul and Carol's 'climate bill' passed by the House last year.  Aside from making energy more expensive--which we are told is not a tax on the middle class, and making government more expensive--which is also not a tax on the middle class, it will also raise the cost of food.