They will be running phone banks everyday and need volunteers to come in and help man the office, make survey calls right into their own towns, help with mailings, and help go door to door.

If you can help out with this effort, contact the person listed below at the office that would be most convenient for you to volunteer at:

Bedford Office – Simon Thomson – simon@nhgop. org or 415-0236

Nashua Office – Nick Pappas – nick@nhgop.org or 415-0279

Stratham Office – Caroline Gilger – caroline@nhgop. org or 415-0278

Salem Office – Bianca Garcia – Bianca@nhgop. org or 512-0588

Keene Office – Annie Kasper – annie@nhgop. org or 415-0012

Laconia Office – Mike Ciccio – mikec@nhgop. org or 712-2301

Also, Republican candidates can put their signs up at offices, drop off materials, and local candidates can make calls right into their district.

If you need further information please call the nearest victory office or contact BJ Perry directly at 603-225-9341 or bj@nhgop.org

First, at the NH State Level….

The Fiscal Collapse of a once-proud State

Then, the US Congress simply refuses to perform it’s main duty….

Hoyer Confirms Dems to ‘Deem’ Budget Enforcement Resolution

And worst of all a President who ignores his responsibility and makes a disaster he did not cause, worse by his inaction…

why-has-barack-obama-refused-to-accept-international-help-to-clean-up-the-oil-spill-in-the-gulf-of-mexico

What’s the common theme here folks?: Democrats, Democrats, Democrats. They are a cancer on our state and the nation. Strong words? You bet! But it’s undeniable. They destroy everything they touch. As Governor Sununu has often said “The Democrats are ruining New Hampshire”. And their cohorts in Washington are spending us into oblivion as Dear Leader plays golf while the Gulf states suffer through his negligence. It’s thoroughly disgusting. These aren’t just policy differences folks. This is one party, driven by their far left ideology, systematically dismantling everything that made this state and this nation the greatest on earth.

Had enough yet?

– Mark

To the Editor

Hooray! We stopped the Milford District Court from closing. OK, but at what cost.

Last year the Judicial Branch decided as a cost savings to close the Milford District Court and transfer the court function to the newly constructed, large and efficient courthouse in Merrimack. This would require the citizens and police in the towns of Amherst, Milford, Mont Vernon, Lyndeborough, Wilton, Mason and Brookline to travel to the court in Merrimack located near Baboosic Lake Road and Route 3A – over a half hour drive for some of the communities. Also included in the economy move was the closing of district courts in the communities of Claremont, Colebrook and Keene.

The consolidation of district court districts has been a long term policy for the judicial branch. The Judicial Branch has decided to construct large efficient buildings, that have every conceivable courthouse amenity facility requirement and serve a larger population area. Ignored is the traditional that goes back to the 19th century that the Municipal and District courts were the peoples court; the courts closest to the citizens. True, the court houses in towns were small and did not provide the desired court house amenities; some borrowed space in the town hall. When I served as a judge in Wilton the court met in the selectmen’s room, heated in the winter by a wood stove. True facilities were lacking, but the court was part of the community, and the court functioned for the citizens, often open on Saturdays and evenings for the convenience of the citizens.

So now we are allowed to keep the Milford Court open, but only if the towns pay much of the cost. Starting in July, the seven local communities serviced by the Milford District court must pay the non-personnel and rental costs totaling $97,680.20 a year. The rent for the building is almost $80,000 a year. With the towns paying the costs, the Judicial Branch saves money in that the building is on a long term lease that is still in effect that they are obligated to finance. Had the court been moved the state would be obligated to pay the rent for an empty building until the end of the lease term; now we must pay. Here are the costs apportioned to the towns: Amherst: $30,573.90, Milford: $36,141.87, Brookline: $11,330.90, Lyndeborough: $1,562.88, Mason: $2,051.28, Mont Vernon: $4981.69, and Wilton: 11,037.86.

So how do we save our local courts? First, we can offer legislation to stop the District Court relocation to Merrimack. Second, we can pass legislation that gives the towns the court fine money to offset the cost; currently all fine money goes to the state.

Last, there may be two Constitution violations. First, the courts are a state responsibility; it may be discrimination to have some towns bear the costs of courts and the state pay for others. Second, there is a provision in our constitution that states that if the state mandates a program to the communities, the state must bear the mandated costs.

If I was a selectman in the communities served by the Milford District Court, My answer would be not to pay and to take the position that the law is unconstitutional. After all the towns have passed budgets in March and this cost was not included.

Your representative,

Robert H. Rowe

To Chairman Michael Steele and Whom It May Concern,

I will not be sending you a contribution in response to this request or any others you may send me for the foreseeable future. The reason for this is simple: I have no confidence that a donation to the RNC (or the NRCC or the NRSC) will be used to elect conservatives. In years past we have seen the RNC spend our donations to elect and re-elect RINOs like Arlen Specter, and most recently watched as nearly a million dollars was wasted trying to elect liberal Dede Scozzafava to a House seat in upstate NY. In both cases, a Democrat now occupies those respective seats. The RNC-supported candidates were nothing but turncoats and sellouts and it seems everyone but the national party was well aware of it! Now we read more accounts of flat out waste of RNC funds, whether it be lavish junkets, or the recent revelations of expense accounts used at disgusting adult entertainment establishments.

For all of the above reasons, I will no longer be sending my political contributions to the national party. Instead I will keep my contributions local and donate to candidates and activist groups I can trust to promote a genuine limited government agenda. I remain a Republican but I am a grass roots conservative Republican. I hope one day the RNC will become an organization that promotes a set of strong values and not just a party label but unfortunately we are not there yet. The good news is that at the local level (and increasingly at the state level here in New Hampshire) grass roots conservatives are the backbone of the town, city, and county Republican committees working to elect candidates who support individual liberty, personal responsibility, and a government that obeys the Constitution rather than try to avoid and subvert it for their own purposes. Perhaps you folks in Washington should pay us a visit to see how it’s done.

Sincerely,
Mark Vincent
Chairman, Amherst Republican Town Committee

The weather was warm and dry last Saturday for holding one of my periodic “office hours” for meeting the public as a state representative for Milford and Amherst. As a public official you get comments and questions based on constituents’ issues covering national, state and local concerns, so we’ll take them in that order:

National

The majority of comments and inquiries for the day were about strong objections to national policy ranging from opposition to recently passed health care legislation to the growing size of the national debt, and sheer size and perceived invasion of liberty characterized by the growth of the federal government. Clearly, these issues are beyond being a state rep … but that is what the majority of the approximately 30 people with whom I spoke wanted to talk about. Without my asking, most identified themselves as “independents.”

State

One person never left his truck, but asked that I support calling on the New Hampshire Attorney General to join the suit by 14 other state attorneys general against the mandated coverage required by the new federal health care bill. … I will. Another person favored casino gambling as proposed in Senate Bill 489. … which I oppose, and a group enjoying the weather just wanted to talk about the New Hampshire legislative process … we did.

Local

An individual was adamant about stabilizing school funding; another stressed the need for more recycling, and finally the motorcycles were out in force and a biker stopped to talk about the joy of being back on the road.

I was at the Milford Rotary Park, and the Amherst Transfer Station this time and will hold more “office hours” this June after the state Legislature has adjourned before the September primaries and November elections.

BILL BELVIN

Amherst

State Representative, Hillsborough District 6, Milford/Amherst

HCR26 reaffirming the state’s religious heritage and constitutional rights to practice religion and free speech.

This Resolution, which was cosponsored by Representative Steve Palmer, is quite lengthy so you can take a look at the full text here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HCR0026.html
It basically reinforces and reiterates our right to freedom of speech and religion here in the Granite State. Are you surprised that our Democrat majority chose to kill this resolution? These ideas just aren’t as popular as they used to be. This resolution failed on a 122-215 vote. Here’s the breakdown for our delegation:

FOR the resolution: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the resolution: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

HB1522 relative to local spending caps.

This bill, which was cosponsored by Senator Peter Bragdon, would have provided statutory support for cities and towns enacting spending caps for town and school budgets. Would you care to guess what this legislature thinks of local control of budgets and the people voting to enact limitations on local spending? You guessed correctly if you said, NOT in favor. The bill died by a 148-202 vote. Here’s what our folks had to say:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Bergin, Daniels, Dokmo, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)

HB1653 decriminalizing possession of one quarter of an ounce or less of marijuana.
Here we go again. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em – and if it’s a quarter ounce or less of the wacky weed this legislature says “party on” by a vote of 214-137. Here’s what our delegation had to say. Let’s see how many of them inhaled….

FOR the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Willette
AGAINST the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1445 eliminating the meals and rooms tax on campsites.

Here’s one they got right. If you go camping and bring your own room and bring your own meal, you shouldn’t have to pay a meals and rooms tax. The House has repealed this tax by a vote of 202-125. Here’s how our folks voted:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Bergin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1218 requiring a report of payments to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

This bill would have required the treasurer to submit an annual report of state payments to ACORN. I don’t know about you but I sure would like to know if any of our money is going to this group. Unfortunately, the legislature would prefer to not provide us with this information. The bill failed 139-176. Here’s the Hillsborough 6 tally:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1343 establishing a joint committee on the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States of America in order to protect state sovereignty.

You will want to read this lengthy bill here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1343.html. This bill would set up a commission to discuss the constitutionality of federal legislation, hold hearings, and propose legislation where a need is seen. Evidently, this legislature cannot even stomach the idea of a commission to discuss these issues. The bill failed 123-208. Here’s what our folks had to say about it:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HCR21 urging all members of Congress who vote in favor of a government run health insurance option to enroll in that option and forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
This one could be summed up as the “eat your own dog food” resolution. If you impose something on the people you should have to live by it yourself. Not according to this crowd in Concord. The resolution failed 122-185.

FOR the resolution: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the resolution: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1635 prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building.

This bill would have been a major infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, it was soundly defeated by a vote of 256-33. I am pleased to report that none of our Amherst/Milford Representatives voted in favor of this bill.

HB1433 relative to lawful commerce in firearms, including manufacture and sale, in New Hampshire.
This bill, cosponsored by Gary Daniels, is a challenge to federal regulation of intrastate commerce. This piece of text from the bill provides a good description:
“The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture, on an intrastate basis, of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.”
In other words – if it’s made here and sold here it isn’t INTERstate commerce and is therefore not subject to federal regulation. You can imagine what this legislature thinks of state’s rights (refer back to HB1343). The bill failed 107-205. Here’s the Hillsborough 6 roll call:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Willette
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1691 relative to the treatment of cable television as a protected utility service.
Did you realize the cable TV is now considered an essential service for tenants and therefore cannot be shut off for non-payment? This bill would have removed cable from the list of essential services (like heat, electricity, etc.) but no, according to this legislature, by a vote of 140-129 cable is a “must have” service for all tenants, even the deadbeats. One more discouragement for prospective landlords. Here’s how our folks voted on this one:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1693 relative to the powers of the joint committee on legislative facilities.
This bill would have overturned a decision of the Joint Legislative Facilities Committee that banned weapons in the State House complex. The irony of the move by this committee to impose the ban is one of the reasons given: They claimed that legislators were intimidated by spectators in the house gallery who were shouting at them after the defeat of a bill. And, some of these people were openly carrying firearms. Never was there any accusation that anyone had used or otherwise brandished a firearm in a threatening way. And, most importantly, the rules as they existed at that time (and had since 1971) already prohibited carry on the House floor and in the gallery. The rule was NOT enforced that day, as it certainly could have been. This bill would leave those prohibitions in place. There is simply no reason to further restrict personal defense in the people’s house. But, the legislature did not agree and the bill was defeated 167-191.

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1664 making appropriations reductions in the operating budget for fiscal year 2011 and relative to state revenues and expenditures.

Finally, let’s talk budget cuts – we need some. OK, we need a lot of cuts. But evidently, this crowd in Concord can’t even get started with budget cutting. This bill was tabled by a vote of 212-151. These Democrats have absolutely no ability to cut back on their spending. They continue to dig us deeper into a budgetary hole and show no sign of letting up. To them it’s all about new taxes, higher taxes, more taxes. The tabling of this bill is yet more evidence of this. Here is how our delegation voted. I am counting a vote to table as a vote AGAINST the bill and AGAINST reducing spending.

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

Let’s not forget the State Senate – they have been busy this month as well:

SB461 requiring a 2/3 vote for the general court to adopt legislation incurring indebtedness.

Make it more difficult to go into debt? Why would we want to do that? Democrats prefer it be as easy as possible to borrow in order to feed their insatiable appetite for spending. And thus, this bill was killed 15-9.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB472 making the commission of certain murders eligible for the death penalty.

I don’t understand why ALL murders aren’t eligible for the death penalty. But apparently we’re going to have to go about it piecemeal. But this piece was too much for the Democrats to stomach. They voted to refer the bill to interim study 14-10. WHAT IS THERE TO STUDY? Seems pretty simple to me.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB474 changing the rate of the meals and rooms tax, repealing the meals and rooms tax on campsites, and requiring a reduction in general fund appropriations for the biennium ending June 30, 2011.

This bill would change the meals and rooms tax from 9% to 8% and repeal the tax on campsites. It would also reduce general fund spending by a paltry $8 million. Much like their counterparts in the House, spending reductions just aren’t possible for Senate Democrats. They tabled the bill by a vote of 14-10.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB487 relative to charter limitations on the growth of budgets and taxes and to the validity of certain city and town charter provisions.

SB488 relative to the adoption of local spending caps.
These two bills are similar to HB1522 regarding cities and towns having the ability to enact their own spending caps for town and school budgets. Both were tabled in the Senate on party line votes. Senate Dems, like their House counterparts just cannot abide the idea that we the people might want to constrain the rate of growth of government at the local level.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of both bills.

SB489 relative to table gaming and video lottery at certain locations throughout the state and relative to the recovery of horse racing.
Expanded gambling (“gaming” to make it more palatable) is thought by some to be the answer, or at least part of the answer, to our budgetary woes. This bill passed 14-10 but it was not a party line vote. Senator Bragdon and other Republicans voted in favor and some Democrats were opposed. The real test for this bill is in the House, which has usually opposed such measures. The Governor’s announced opposition might make it more difficult, if you can believe he is really opposed to the bill. He might be against it before he is for it. In any case this will be one to keep an eye on.

OK – that’s all for now. Of course, this is nowhere near a complete list of all roll call votes. For that go to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

This has been especially true since that other party has been in the majority in the General Court. In an effort to provide you with an update on the shenanigans in Concord, I present you with this brief recap of some important bills recently voted on and how our Amherst/Milford delegation voted. For constitutional amendments, a vote FOR the amendment is a vote in favor of putting it to the voters in the fall, and isn’t necessarily a vote in favor of the amendment itself. But a vote AGAINST is to prevent the people from having a final say.

CACR26: relating to taxation. Providing that there shall be no broad-based taxes in New Hampshire

This is one that comes up about every session and for some reason never seems to pass. I would think that if you are against a broad based tax on the citizens of the state that this would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, this failed by a vote of 136-221. Here’s what our delegation had to say:

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

OK, so we won’t be able to vote on a constitutional amendment to take a broad based tax off the table. How about an amendment to make it more difficult to raise taxes or create new taxes and fees?

CACR23 relating to taxation. Providing that a 2/3 vote is required to pass legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees provided that the legislature may increase the rate of taxes and fees with a majority vote in any fiscal year that insufficient revenues are provided to pay the principal and interest on a debt payable in that year, to which the state has pledged its faith and credit.

Looks like that’s what CACR23 would do. But it failed 108-239. Here’s the Hillsborough District 6 tally:

FOR the amendment: Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Belvin, Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

One of the largest budgeting problems we have is that the courts control education funding, rather than the legislature. This amendment would have given some of that power back to the legislature where it belongs:

CACR27 relating to education funding. Providing that state funding of education shall be targeted.

But we’re 0 for 3 on amendments as this one went down 125-233….

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

Lastly, for amendments to the state constitution, there’s this one:

CACR28 relating to the definition of marriage. Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage

The amendment failed 135-201. Here’s the breakdown for our district:

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe

AGAINST the amendment: Chandley (D), Dokmo, Willette
Bergin – Not Voting/Not Excused

That’s all for amendments, now on to a few House bills…..

HB1654 relative to state house security

This bill is the infamous State House gun ban that I emailed you all about previously. This would have taken the existing rule against carrying weapons in the State House and adjoining buildings and made such an act a felony, rather than just resulting a request to leave the building. I am pleased to report that this bill died a well-deserved death by a vote of 35-300 and I am also pleased to report that all members of our delegation voted to kill the bill.

HB1128 relative to the distribution of meals and rooms tax revenues to cities and towns.

This bill would give back $5 million in meals and rooms tax revenue that was taken away to balance (??) the budget last year. It passed but just barely 184-174. Here were the votes from Amherst and Milford:

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Dokmo, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)

HB1454 requiring parental consent for medical procedures and medications provided to minors.

Our own Bob Willette is the sponsor of this bill, which would ensure parental rights. Here’s some more detail on it:
This bill requires the consent of a parent or guardian for any person to provide medication or provide or perform any medical procedure, including vaccinations, immunizations, and abortions upon any unemancipated minor, except in a medical emergency. A minor may seek court approval for such medication or procedure, if the minor elects not to seek consent or does not receive the consent of a parent or guardian. Any person who violates such a law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

This seems to be a fairly common sense approach to parental rights. But, perhaps not too common in Concord these days as the bill failed 140-218. Here’s the tally:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo
HB1645 relative to freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union

This is a “right to work” law. It’s a another one that has come up before and never seems to pass. Wouldn’t the freedom to decline membership in a labor union fit in with our “Live Free or Die” motto? Evidently, according to the majority in Concord, freedom just doesn’t extend that far as this bill failed 122-232. Here’s how our folks voted:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D), Dokmo
Bergin – Not Voting/Not Excused

There’s a sampling of a few important votes cast over the last month. This is in no way a complete list. For that, go to the General Court web site where you can see all the roll calls and look up any bill:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

You can search by bill number, or keywords so you can find bills that pertain to the issues you care about. There are a lot of pieces of legislation still in the pipeline so stay tuned.

– Mark

November 30, 2009

NEWS RELEASE

REP. ROWE SPONSORS TAX AND FEE REDUCTION LEGISLATION

With the New Hampshire House of Representatives set to return for another session in January, Representative Robert Rowe, who represents the towns of Amherst and Milford, has submitted legislation that would bring some relief to the taxpayers of the State. Rep. Rowe is sponsoring a bill that would reduce the motor vehicle registration fee increases and sir-charges passed into law last session; legislation that raised fees by as much as $25.00 per vehicle.

“The motor vehicle fee increases for registration and vanity plates are creating a hardship for many of our citizens and businesses who can least afford it. The result in many cases is self defeating since many residents have chosen not to register a vehicle while some businesses have chosen to register vehicles out of state.”

His bill would also repeal legislation that doubles fees charged to New Hampshire businesses by the Department of Environmental Services. “Before increasing administrative fees, the State should first look to enacting department efficiencies,” said Rowe. “Small business is the backbone of the New Hampshire economy and during a down economic turn, fee and tax increases should never be an option,” he concluded.

Representative Rowe is the Republican Leader in the House Judiciary Committee and is serving his seventh term in the New Hampshire House. His bill will be debated by the Legislature during the 2010 session.

———-

For further information contact Representative Rowe by telephone at 673-2693

Mark joined NHTR during their second hour on Thursday, October 22, 2009.

Read the Full Press Release Here