Amherst Republican Committee

March 28, 2009

To the Editor:

Before a bill can go to the Governor and be passed into law, it must first be publicly introduced and then voted on in a legislative committee. Only after it passes from the committee with a pass or kill recommendation is it voted on by the full House or Senate. Here is a report on four important social bills that will make a major difference in our lives in New Hampshire. These four bills were in the committee I serve on, the Judiciary Committee, in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and this is what happened to the four bills.

The first bill (House Bill 304) would allow a physician to prescribe suicide pills to a patient. As a result of the public outcry, this bill was tabled in committee. This means it will stay in the Judiciary Committee until next year. It will then be voted on by the full legislature.

The second was a bill requires parents to be notified prior to an abortion conducted on their minor daughter (House Bill 531). Parental notification was killed in the House. Representative from local towns (Amherst, Mont Vernon and Milford) voting to kill Parental notification were Representatives Dokmo, Bergan, Chandley and Foster.

The third, the transgender rights bill, also known as the bathroom bill, (House Bill 415) passed through the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote. It was a close call but it was killed in the House. Voting to pass the bill were Representatives Foster and Chandley. While this bill failed to pass on March 26th, it will be reconsidered on April 8th.

The fourth bill was the Homosexual Marriage bill, (House Bill 436). This bill passed through the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote. On the house floor it passed with the vote of Representatives Dokmo, Bergan, Chandley, and Foster. Now it goes to the Senate.

Thanks to the internet a citizen can follow all bills and the voting records of their legislators. The state has a web site for the legislature. You can read the bill and follow the bill through the legislature and determine how your representatives voted.

Robert H. Rowe

Representative from Amherst and Milford

Op-eds

Ban on Photographing Military Coffins Protected Grieving Families from Media
Reprinted from U.S. News & World Report

By Bill Martel

March 09, 2009

The ban on photographing soldiers’ coffins as they return to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware was not simply about images but also about shielding grief-stricken military families from a media maelstrom. It was not an issue of freedom of the press but one of respect and one of fairness.

Nevertheless, pressure built in Washington to change the old policy, which dated to 1991. On Jan. 7, 2009, Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina, introduced House Resolution 269, the “Fallen Hero Commemoration Act.” This bill called for “the Department of Defense to grant access to accredited members of the media when the remains of members of the Armed Forces arrive at military installations in the United States.”

President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered a review of the issue, and an announcement of the Pentagon’s conclusions came Thursday when Gates announced that media coverage would be allowed in cases where families give permission.

Critics of the ban argued that there are several benefits to be gained by allowing the media to photograph the coffins. For example, they argued that lift-ing the ban would affirm the public’s right to know, a right that Americans deeply value. In ad-dition, such photographs would show the American people the human cost of war.

Some also argued that it would prevent the Department of Defense from manipulating public opinion by suppressing images of the human cost of war. Finally, the ban was such a deeply polarizing and emotionally charged issue in American society that lifting it might start to heal the rift between those who legitimately differ over this policy.

These are all perfectly sensible arguments, made by reasonable people. But despite growing momentum that culminated in the lifting of the ban, there were several reasons to oppose such a reverse in policy.

First, the solemn act of bringing home our military dead will become sensationalized. We inevitably will see private family moments turned into public events.

The act of returning those who have died in war is known in U.S. military parlance as the “dignified transfer of remains.” However, the very act of photographing the coffins of our fallen will be part and parcel of a classic public spectaclefeaturing grieving military families who will be overwhelmed by media coverage.

Second, each family’s right to privacy in this moment will be immediately and irrevocably sacrificed. We are obligated to honor those who have fallen in war in a way that preserves each military family’s right to privacy. Otherwise, we risk exploiting their loss.

Military families deserve privacy, including the right to decide whether to allow the public to intrude, so including the family-permission clause helps some. Simply lifting the ban outright would have hurt families who are caught in the middle of searing pain and grief.

Furthermore, our obligation to put families first in protecting their privacy must trump the public’s right to see the coffins of our war dead. Compassion for military families must outweigh well-intentioned arguments that defend the public’s right to know.

The challenge for policymakers is to artfully balance what is in the best interests of democratic governance with compassion for those whose loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice in war. In such moments, we must err on the side of protecting those who bear the greatest burden.

Third, some argue that one reason for lifting the ban is to make political statements about the costs of war. The public’s right to see photographs of soldiers’ coffinsso that, as one reporter said to President Obama, they can “see the full human cost of war”seems hollow in the face of private grief. If people want to understand the costs of war, they can visit Arlington National Cemetery, where 300,000 are buriedor read newspapers that routinely list names of the dead.

Images of grief-stricken military families will make powerful statements about war’s human toll. Many were rightly offended when activists exploited military funerals for political purposes. Many members of the military have objected to having their images used for antiwar messages. How will this be any different?

What should the Pentagon have done? It is reasonable to give families the right to veto media coverage of the “dignified transfer of remains” at Dover Air Force Base. But what military family wants to make such a decision in its moment of grief?

Still, with this veto power, quite soon we will know how many military families are in favor of media coverage. My instinct is that fewer rather than more will want this private moment opened to cameras. According to polls of families who have lost a loved one in war, the vast majority oppose lifting the ban.

In the end, it is all the rage to talk about the sacrifices of military families. Many, in fact, have cited these sacrifices as reasons to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

In fairness, by revoking the ban on media coverage of returning fallen heroes, allowing military families to be photographed when they are most vulnerable in their grief, we are not listening to military families or looking out for their best interests.

Put simply, lifting the ban on photographing coffins was not the right thing to do for military families who have lost loved ones in war.

Bill Martel is associate professor of international security studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.

I was sent a link to this new conservative blog site recently. This is a great list of left wing terminology. Enjoy!

Liberal-Speak Demystified (Scaldedape.com)

The Wizard of Washington
Written By: Chris Richter

The Wizard of Washington has revealed himself from behind the curtain and to the surprise of many; there was just a man who didnt know how to run the show, except by pulling on some levers and making some sounds. For Dorothy, that reality carried a heavy price tag as the Wizard of Oz didnt have the capabilities to send her home. For Barack Obama, that reality also carried a heavy price tag as the Wizard of Washington doesnt have the capabilities to get us out of the economic trouble were presently in.

When Barack Obama was running for President, Americans were mesmerized by the first African American Presidential Candidate in history. They were mesmerized by how well he could speak. Americans disapproved of the War in Iraq and Obama promised that they would be home if they elected him. Americans liked the idea that he represented a difference from what they had seen for the previous eight years. He rose to the heights of rock star status and his fans cheered him on to the White House.

Now that he has arrived in the White House, the long lines of fans waiting to shake his hand are still there, but instead of asking for a handshake, theyre asking for a handout. And with buzz phrases such as the economy is going to collapse if we dont pass this bill now, the amount of money that will be available for handouts will be significant. Oh and despite popular belief, our economy is not about to collapse today, tomorrow, next month, or even next year.

The latest stimulus bill in the Senate puts the initial price tag at $850 billion  thats almost $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. This figure does not include a few other amounts, which have been cleverly hidden from the public. First, it does not include the interest for borrowing the money  after all we dont have the money so we have to borrow it from other people and other countries. Second, it does not include the extra amount that will have to be spent once the projects are completed (and how many government projects run over budget?  the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center was projected to cost $71 million, finally finishing 3 years behind schedule at a cost of $621 million). Keep in mind that the upkeep for these new roads and bridges, among other projects, will be substantial. Third, it doesnt account for what happens to the workers once the projects are completed. Do they simply roll into new government projects (at an additional cost) or do they file for unemployment benefits (yet another cost). Trillions of dollars later, instead of just one bridge to no where in Alaska, throughout the country we will be having many bridges to everywhere.

Politicians spending money is equitable to young boys putting out house fires with water guns  they look cute in the newspaper, but its neither the right tool, nor the right people to be doing the job. In a time when economic ingenuity needs to be at its zenith, we allow politicians, who have no business experience, to lead the way. At the head of the line is our Commander in Chief, our CEO, who has not one day of business experience under his hat.

Lack of business experience is not only counter-productive, but it is also dangerous. Not only do the latest versions of the stimulus bill do little if anything to actually stimulate the economy (allocating in the latest Senate bill $110 million to the General Accounting Office and Agency Inspectors General just to oversee the money being spent), but they place even a larger burden on future generations (the latest Senate version raises the national debt ceiling to $12.14 trillion).

The only way to create a sustainable and prosperous economy is through private business  not through the government. Entrepreneurship is what made this country the strongest financial center in the world. Despite what some will say in the media, even today, the reality is that our economy is the strongest of any country in the world and it will remain that way as long as we have a free market instead of socialism, socialism is the economy that the President and his allies in Congress want. Socialism has never worked at any point in any country in the world. Nor will it work in this country today. It was said once if we dont learn from history, we are bound to repeat its mistakes. If we look at what other countries have done throughout history, by turning to socialism, we would see numerous problems with their economy and their country as a whole. In the desire to equalize a people, the people become more unequal than ever.

During difficult times, we must not look at socialism as the answer to our problems, but must encourage private business to fix the economy, by having them create jobs and by having them give workers more money, who then in turn buy more and grow the economy. The best approach to doing this is to create economic enterprise zones, where among other positive actions, business taxes would be cut if not eliminated. By allowing businesses to keep more of their own money, they are able to reinvest that money in their business, growing that money, far faster than the average person could, let alone the government. Layoffs would slow down and hiring would increase. President Obama wants to create or save almost 4 million new jobs  this is where it needs to happen. Only when this happens will we create sustainable jobs, only then will we turn the economy around, and only then will we not burden future generations with a debt already much too heavy for them to bear.

It is important to realize that while there may be someone claiming to be the Wizard of Washington, eventually the Wizard reveals himself and can sometimes show a very different person. And when you actually look at the levers hes pulling, you might realize that the noises coming out were not the noises you expected to hear.

OP-ED: This Congress has betrayed the American people
Jennifer Horn
16th February 2009

The ill-named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – about to pass both houses of Congress in it’s revised form – is a complete and total rejection of the democratic ideals of our founding fathers and a betrayal of the President’s promise to bring genuine tax relief to the majority of American taxpayers and work across the aisle on the most important issues of the day.

At 789 billion dollars, plus interest on repayment, it is a spending package that will ultimately cost the people of America well in excess of a trillion dollars. 789 billion dollars is nine zeros and approximately 17.5% of our GDP!

According to one evaluation of the bill, if the temporary programs become permanent programs – an outcome that we all know is possible – the total value of this spending package will exceed three trillion dollars.

At every level of government we have been betrayed by our elected representatives. Representative Paul Hodes rejected the Wall St bailout because, in his words, it did not protect the taxpayers “enough.” Immediately following the election he voted for the auto industry bailout and more recently for the so-called stimulus package.

Paul Hodes is not protecting the New Hampshire taxpayer.

In the first six weeks of 2009 we have seen the largest increase in spending since World War II. There is still three years and ten and half months left of this administration – every taxpayer in the country has reason to be afraid.

Over the past three weeks we have heard dozens of excuses why this Congress isn’t to blame for the economic mess we are in and absolutely no real solutions.

True leadership isn’t pointing fingers and playing the name game – it’s crafting real solutions to the problems we face and presenting them articulately to the American people. The first thing we need to understand is that government is the problem, not the solution and this (anti) economic stimulus package is the perfect example.

The bill is so large and cumbersome that it is virtually impossible to nail precise numbers – even the legislators voting on it don’t appear to have a full understanding of its contents. At best, over two thirds of the bill consists of new and additional spending, pure and simple: special interest projects, gimmes, and pork beyond your wildest imagination.

It is not possible to spend your way out of an economic recession. It defies logic to suggest otherwise. Over the past fifty years the only device that has consistently and successfully brought true economic stimulus to our economy has been broad based tax cuts, beginning with President Kennedy’s cuts in the early 60’s.

But tax cuts only bring long-term relief when they are accompanied by broad-based cuts in spending. This bill does exactly the opposite. It’s spending is designed for only one purpose – to create millions of new government-dependent individuals who in turn become party-in-power voters who are afraid of losing their government aid.

It is one more giant step toward socialism, slipped past the American people dressed up in pretty prose like “recovery and reinvestment.”

This bill is so bad that it does not even address what is widely believed to be the straw that broke the economic camel’s back: the mortgage crisis. First there was a $15,000. credit for new home buyers to stimulate the housing market – then there wasn’t. Then there were going to be Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reforms – then there wasn’t.

At last reading, there was new language inserted in the bill instructing Fannie and Freddie to rewrite bad loans given to individuals who could not afford them in the first place. Exactly what caused the mortgage crisis to begin with.

This bill offers no real solutions to the economic problems we face today and, in fact, increases government spending to such a degree that we are guaranteeing that our grandchildren will carry the burden.

It is impossible to list every dollar spent in this bill, impossible to enumerate every bad program created. But what remains without any doubt at all is that it is the taxpayers of New Hampshire and all of the United States who are going to be left holding the bag when all is said and done.

It is no longer about one party against the other. It is about which party is going to fight for us. Every Democrat and Republican who either voted for this package or failed to stand and fight vehemently against it, has betrayed the people of our great nation. And that includes Rep. Paul Hodes, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s betrayal of the people of the New Hampshire.