There seems to be a trend in Massachusetts. Sal Dimasi, the Massachusetts speaker of the house, charges are beginning to surface about possible ethics charges. This would be the third straight Massachusetts speaker of the house to face an ethics probe. Three times a charm. The last speaker of the house, Tom Finneran, pled guilty to a lesser FELONY and not only did he receive no jail time, he was reward with a lucrative radio talk show in the morning drive slot. Crime DOES pay!
In Sal’s case he is facing possible ethics violations for legislation that was modified or created in private by Sal Dimasi that benefited his buddies.
the legislation was either created or modified in the House Ways and Means Committee chaired by DiMasi ally and would-be successor Rep. Robert DeLeo
That sounds a little like what the governor did not too long ago, when he let a bill slip into law that would benefit his wife’s company. It is just business as usual in Massachusetts. Here are some of the possible violations:
•A ticket-scalping bill that has prompted allegations of unregistered lobbying by longtime DiMasi campaign backer and accountant Richard Vitale
•A contract for $13 million for Cognos, a Canadian software company with ties to DiMasi loyalists
•A plan to allow wind farms in Buzzards Bay that could benefit DiMasi’s close friend, developer Jay Cashman
•A $50,000 arts grant for the Woods Hole Film Festival, which is run by a top DiMasi aide.
This backroom dealing in the shadowy confines of a dark lit room is what has legislator up in arms.
“Bills are routinely changed in the process, but the thing that’s unique here is you have major policy initiatives being completely re-written in Ways and Means. That doesn’t reflect the committee process,” said one lawmaker, who requested anonymity. “It’s not transparent.”
I think it is transparent, it is very clear to me what Sal Dimasi is doing here. He gets by with a little help from his friends. And they get by with a little help from him.
Perhaps Deval Patrick can learn a lesson from this, donate to Sal Dimasi’s campaign if you ever want to get that casino bill passed. That is all it takes, it isn’t hard.
Democrats say Gas Tax Holiday is “DOA”
Democrats love to tax, tax, tax. There is no secret to that, we all know it is true. A couple of weeks ago Republican turncoat John McCain proposed suspending the 18.4 cent a gallon tax for the summer, a proposal Hillary Clinton quickly glommed onto. If Hillary wasn’t running for president she would never agree to suspending any type of tax. But she is, so she did.
However, Democrats in congress have already decided that a gas tax holiday is DOA. There is no way in hell that the party that claims to care about the little people would actually try to help the little people by cutting their taxes. No, no, no, quite the contrary, we have heard Democrats say that we need to increase the gas tax to dissuade the people from using so much gas. They have private jets that need that gas much more than we do, as does Republican turncoat John McCain who used his wife’s private jet on the campaign trail.
This is what Nancy Pelosi had to say about the idea:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said “there’s no reason to believe that any moratorium on the gas tax would be passed on to the consumer.”
How does that make any sense at all? This isn’t like a business that finds a way to save manufacturing costs in order to make more of a profit by not passing their savings on to the consumer. This is an elimination of a tax. Once the tax is gone the price will lower. How will this not reach the consumer? Nancy Peloci is either showing her ignorance or just assumes we are the ignorant ones.
More Democrat response:
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said suspending the gas tax would “not be a policy that I would think is particularly positive.”
What wouldn’t be positive? The fact that less revenue would be coming into the government? Saving the little people a few cents would not be particularly positive according to the majority leader. I guess we see where the majority of Democrats stand on cutting taxes to help the people save a few dollars over the summer.
Barack Obama also opposes the idea of helping working class Americans save a few dollars. He says that this amounts to only a few pennies and isn’t worth it. Maybe a few pennies doesn’t mean much to a liberal as out of touch with the American people as Barack Obama seems to be, but just poll the American people to see if it would be welcome. I think we know the answer.
This is just another example of how Democrats really do not care about helping out “disadvantaged” Americans. When there is a choice between helping the American people by cutting taxes and keeping the revenue streams flowing strongly, I think we know where the Democrats stand.
There is no way in hell the Democrats will ever eliminate the gas tax even temporarily to help the American people. They believe that government intervention is the answer to every problem that Americans face. And because of this they need to keep all revenues active in the guise of helping us even as they fuck us.
New Hampshire Governor Approves More Sin Taxes
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
I am not even going to bore you again here with the details of New Hampshire’s budget woes other than to say that liberal Governor John Lynch vastly outspent the state’s incoming revenue by a projected $200 million plus. If you are so inclined you can read more about New Hampshire’s deficit here. What I do want to write about is what Governor Lynch has decided is the best way to cope with the impending crash of New Hampshire’s economy. Has he decided to cut spending? Only to a small extent. Has he decided to raise taxes? BINGO. Sin taxes.
Gov. John Lynch proposed Thursday raising the cigarette tax 25 cents a pack and cutting a discount that retailers get for wine they buy from the state.
Lynch told the House Finance Committee he also supports a 10 percent tax on Texas Hold ‘Em poker games
Governor Lynch justifies his increase in the cigarette tax by saying in effect, we aren’t raising our cigarette tax as much as Maine or Massachusetts.
Lynch said Massachusetts and Maine are considering raising their tax rates, which will make New Hampshire’s prices attractive even with a hike in its tax
This is like a third grade mentality. He feels that, sure we may be doing something wrong (raising taxes) but we aren’t as bad as our neighbors. So immature an argument. I know you are, but what am I?
So tobacco users are going to pay once again, but what other group will also pay more?
Lynch also wants to cut in half a 20 percent discount given to outlets that buy wine from the state. The cut would save the state about $10 million.
Who do you think will have to pay for the 10% increase in the price of wine that outlets will now incur? Because that is what a decrease in a discount amounts to, an increase in price. Hint: it won’t be the outlets.
Then there will be the new tax on playing poker, a 10% tax on Texas hold’em games held by organizations such as the VFW for fundraising purposes.
Here is a statement made by the house minority leader:
“Rather than looking for reasonable places to reduce the bloated budget passed last year and bring it into line with our rising revenues, the governor and Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate want to raise still more taxes and fees,” said Deputy House Republican Leader David Hess.
More Republican response:
Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, pointed out that revenues this year are $76 million ahead of last year, up 3.8 percent.
“The bottom line is not that we have a revenue problem, it’s that we have a spending problem,” Hess said.
I am gong to say it once again: NEW HAMPSHIRE WAKE UP! We can’t afford another term of Governor Lynch and we certainly can’t afford another term with Democrats in charge of every branch of the state government. We are being spent into oblivion by Lynch and his cronies. We are being taxed to death. We need to remove this irresponsible tax and spend liberal from office. These are just the first of many tax increases. Do you think that spending will be curbed under this administration? Wrong. We are talking about a $200 million plus shortfall here, without even including the disastrous education funding that the governor didn’t have the balls to estimate a cost on.
These taxes may not affect you, but they won’t end here. You have to ask yourself, are you a sinner? If you are, watch out, the governor will come for you eventually. What is your vice? Whatever it is, it will soon cost you more.
WAKE UP NEW HAMPSHIRE, WAKE UP! It may already be too late.
I hope not.
Read more here.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Two liberals finally have stated publicly one of the dirty little secrets behind the rising price of food. Ethanol. We are taking our food and trying to turn it into gas. But it is more than just our food that we are literally letting go up in smoke. It is also the feed used to raise the cattle and poultry that becomes our food that is causing beef and chicken prices to rise. It simply costs more to raise cattle and chickens. There is a limited supply of corn but with the increased demand because of mandated alternative energy the price rises. Supply and demand economics, it is taught, or at least it used to be, in early economics classes.
This was a consequence that was talked about on talk radio but was largely ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians who mandated this policy. However, it is finally beginning to get the attention it deserves, and now Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman have admitted it is true.
Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday that they believe there is a connection between federally mandated consumption of ethanol, a gasoline additive made from corn, and world food shortages.
“I think very definitely there is a clear connection between our ethanol use and world hunger,” Kennedy told Cybercast News Service . “The connection is becoming more evident and understood more every day by the American people. And they understand that there is very little that’s being done to address the problem.”
Politicians created this grain shortage by mandating we turn it into fuel in the first place, now not enough is being done, according to Ted Kennedy, to address the problem that they created in the first place. When this problem is addressed it will lead to another unintended consequence. It always does.
You remember Larry “wide stance” Craig? The disgraced Republican who was looking for love in a glory hole at an airport restroom only to put the moves on an undercover officer had this to say:
“Ethanol today has brought the price of gas down by 20 cents,” Craig said. “American consumers may be paying a little more for food but they are also paying a little less for gas because of ethanol in the market. It’s a worthwhile trade.
He says, sure food may cost more but gas is a little less so it is a fair trade off. How is that? Because it feels better that gas is a little lower we shouldn’t mind that food is higher. Now that sounds more like a Democrat to me. But look who it is coming from. (Pardon the pun). In a way this is the mentality that defines the Democrat party. It is a redistribution of wealth of sorts. Take from oil and give to farmers. Either way we are paying more. Both gas and food are necessities so we will buy both, what difference does it make if gas is lower but food is higher? How much are we saving. If gas was .20 higher as wide stance said it would be but food prices had not risen who is to say that we wouldn’t be better off?
This is what happens when politicians get involved in the free market. Unintended consequences happen. This is a consequence that may have been unintended, but it wasn’t unpredicted by economists who know how the free market works.
The prices of food are only going to increase as ethanol production increases. Perhaps it is time for us all to get on food stamps, that may be the only answer. Let the government provide our food. They have done so well providing for us in every other way. NOT!
The same will apply to health insurance. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is provided by the government. Free has never been so expensive. Another unintended consequence.
This appears to be a cover to me. Scientists are now predicting a cooling period over the next ten years. This natural cooling period will counter the man-made warming. Do you see the covering of all the bases that is going on here? Because the earth is beginning to go into a cooling period, scientists hoping to hold onto their global warming grants are now beginning to cover their asses.
Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind
Not only this but we are supposed to believe that the earth is still warming even as it cools.
Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,” Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there’s no global warming going on.”
If we don’t experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn’t mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,” Keenlyside said in an interview. “There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term
Let me get this right, the earth is still warming, it is just cooling faster than it is warming. We are also just supposed to believe that the cooling is natural while the warming isn’t. How stupid do these people think we are? The earth goes through natural cooling and heating periods. PERIOD!
Let us just pretend for one moment that man-made global warming exists. If the earth is going to start naturally cooling, while man is causing the earth to heat, then don’t we owe it to the planet to keep on warming the earth. Without man-made global warming during this cooling period wouldn’t we be headed to another ice age?
Just one more question. If the earth is warming how is it possible for the oceans to be cooling in the first place? Shouldn’t the oceans be warming also? Okay, so that was two more questions. I can’t help it. The more that we hear about this subject, the more absurd it becomes. Scientists will do and say anything to protect their grant money. Politicians will also do or say anything to guilt people into paying more “green” taxes.
We are now told to believe that if the earth cools over the next decade that it doesn’t mean the warming has ended. It sounds like a cover to me.
I suppose this shouldn’t surprise me, and in fact it doesn’t. Hillary Clinton, who is being sued for campaign fraud by Peter Paul, is going to be deposed in the trial. This trial has been ongoing for five years and it has been delayed until after the election. Figures. While Hillary has claimed that Obama has gotten a free ride in the press (at least until the Reverend Wright controversy), this story has gone virtually unreported.
In case you haven’t heard about this, you can read my previous posts on this issue here, and here. The second link contains a video which may show Hillary committing felony campaign fraud.
Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz of Los Angeles ruled Friday that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, will not have to be deposed in the fraud lawsuit brought by Hollywood businessman Peter F. Paul against former President Bill Clinton until after the November 2008 elections
the recent court ruling — barring appeal — could effectively remove any possibility that Sen. Clinton would be deposed on the matter in the midst of a presidential campaign, were she to be the nominee.
Hillary Clinton admitted that she “misremembered”, I’m sorry I meant “under-reported” how much money she raised at an event held by Peter Paul and had to pay a fine. Now this story is going to be buried until after the election. Perfect. The Clinton’s have been involved in so many campaign scandals that maybe the media is right, this isn’t news because it happens so often. Everyone knows the Clinton’s are crooked, so it is accepted.
It sounds like Hillary is getting a free ride in the press to me. And in the judicial branch also.
New Jersey Lawmakers Debate Fast Food Tax
In a way I find this funny. New Jersey lawmakers are pondering a “sin” tax on fast food. This is the type of thing that I have been warning about for some time. The government has gotten away with taxing smokers for so long that it was only a matter of time before they spread their taxation into other categories that they have decided aren’t good for you. Non-smokers have often laughed when the tobacco taxes are raised time and time again. They say “fuck them, they shouldn’t smoke anyway.” As a non-smoker I have never laughed at raising tobacco taxes, or any taxes for that matter. I have seen this coming.
some lawmakers in New Jersey are considering taking food taxes a step further and install a proverbial “sin” tax on fast food.
Yes, the idea of marking up your favorite fast food burger or pack of fries is actually being tossed around,
This would be an additional fast food tax on top of food taxes that are already being paid. This is what happens when the government decides that they can tax behaviors that they find harmful to a person in the guise of doing it for the person’s own good. Sure, it started with smokers, but it was only a matter of time before it spread to alcohol and foods. What will be next?
“I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods,” said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.
That is the perfect example of the mentality that the nanny staters are relying on. Good ole Maureen thinks it is perfectly acceptable to tax a behavior that she doesn’t like. It really isn’t Maureen’s business what a person decides to eat, it isn’t anybody’s business what someone decides to eat, and it sure as hell isn’t the governments business what someone eats. If I want to eat three Big Macs a day, that is my business, I know the risks, if I chose to take them, so what. I am responsible for my own actions, I don’t need the government taxing me so that I will eat better.
This whole notion of taxing people to dissuade a certain activity is a fallacy anyway, they don’t care if you rectify your “bad behavior” or not, they simply want your money. Bottom line. New Jersey is just looking for a way to raise more revenue to pay for programs that they can’t afford. Instead of cutting programs there is no money for, which would be the responsible thing to do, they simply put more of a tax burden on the people. In a time with soaring gas prices, when food prices are rising because we are trying to make fuel out of our food, and during an economic downturn, the Democrats in New Jersey are thinking about hurting the working class people even more.
I did mention that New Jersey was run by Democrats, right?
New Hampshire Anti-Tax Group Looks to Cap Tax Increases
As anyone who reads here regularly knows, New Hampshire has a tax and spend problem under the Democrat controlled government. It has spilled over into the different communities. The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition wants to start to reign in this spending, starting on a local level by getting a referendum on the ballot in Manchester and 10 other communities to cap taxes. From this New Hampshire Union Leader article:
The conservative New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is leading the drive to put a cap on taxes and spending, tying both to the rate of inflation. Voters would have a chance to approve the proposal when they go to the polls in November.
Before I get back to my point, don’t you just love the way the article has to describe the group as conservative, using the term as an insult of sorts. As if there is something wrong with trying to keep taxes down.
“This really will help the taxpayers. It will force the government to look at how they’re doing business every day,” said Mike Biundo, the coalition’s president.
The group will now have to gather enough signatures to get the question on the ballot. This should not be a problem, they have gathered enough votes before but the legislature refused to put the question on the ballot.
A 2005 petition drive garnered 5,100 signatures, but state agencies struck the proposal off the ballot, saying it was legally flawed.
Fuckers, they were afraid of the results, that is why they refused to put it on the ballot.
Under this proposal the budget spending and tax rates would be tied to the consumer price index. In an effort to get the question on the ballot after the legislature gave this coalition a big FUCK YOU the last time, the new proposal comes with an escape clause. This seems to have won some approval:
Aldermen Ed Osborne, a Democrat, said an escape clause would be crucial if the question were approved.
“As long as you can get out of it, I have no problem with it,” he said.
Doesn’t that quote just sum up Democrats perfectly? Sure they will allow the question on the ballot because even if it is approved they can “get out of it.” And that is all they care about isn’t it? Sure we will try to keep taxes and spending down, but if we decide to, we can “get out of it.” That is their philosophy on this issue. Just another FUCK YOU.
This escape clause really does render this proposal useless, it is no secret that the clause will be used as soon as the next budget rolls around.
It is good to see that we have this group fighting for us here in New Hampshire. They are needed now more than ever. They are fighting an uphill battle, but it is a battle that must be fought. However, I feel they are just shoveling shit against the tide. The blue tide that was swept in in 2006.
This group does have the right approach though. Start at the local level and then move upwards. New Hampshire has spent itself into fiscal crisis since the Democrats took over and voters are starting to become disenchanted (I hope). It is the right time to try to take this state back into fiscal responsibility and that is what the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is trying to do.
We must get behind them.
What happens when you are the pioneer of hurricane forecasting and you speak out against global warming? You almost get fired and you get some of your responsibilities taken away as punishment. William Gray pioneered hurricane forecasting and has worked at Colorado State University for almost 50 years. When he started speaking out against the idea of man-made global warming his relationship with the university soured.
“This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department’s capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms,” Gray wrote in the memo obtained by the Chronicle.
“You see, so many people in our department make a living off the global warming threat,” he said. “So I think that’s part of why they came to me.”
There is just too much money to be made here. Not to mention all of the federal grants that are reliant on the issue of global warming. Without this false threat the scientists would lose their grants so the universities and institutions work to silence all of the dissenting voices. That is how this “consensus” is reached.
Channel 11 meteorologist Neil Frank confirms that William Gray has had issues with the school over his views.
“Bill Gray has come under a lot of fire for his views,”
The global warming skeptics are out there, I have written many posts about the dissenters when I find them. They have been quiet over the years for fear of the persecution they will face such as William Gray has. But they are starting to speak out. Slowly but surely scientists and meteorologists are starting to voice their opinions.
Global warming is a political issue, it is being driven by politicians. Politicians who stand to rake in tax revenue. The same politicians who hold the purse strings over the very people that are supposed to be researching this scam. What do you think these scientists and meteorologists are going to say when the threat of the loss of their funding is looming over their heads?
That’s what I thought.
Supreme Court Rules States can Require Photo ID for Voting
To tell you the truth, this sounds like a no-brainer to me, the supreme court has ruled that states can require voters to show an ID before they can vote. I don’t understand how this became an issue that went all the way to the supreme court anyways. How did it ever become controversial to ask a voter for proof of that voter’s identity?
States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
To tell you the truth I don’t understand the Democrat’s argument on this one. How does showing an ID prevent someone from voting? Anybody can go get an ID card from the state, it isn’t that hard. This law is intended to prevent voter fraud, perhaps Democrats want to commit voter fraud and that is why they are against it. What else could it really be?
The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,'” Scalia said.
Here is Justice John Paul Stevens on the decision:
Indiana has a “valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'” said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person should have to show an ID to vote. In my state of New Hampshire there is no requirement to show an ID. I am always amazed when I walk in and state my last name that the election worker then asks me if my first name is Steve, to which I reply yes. I am then handed my ballot. How does she know that I am Steve? What is to stop somebody from walking in and taking my ballot? Shouldn’t she at least ask me for a first name rather than volunteering one? But then again, I am just a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Democrats and civil rights groups opposed it as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage groups of voters who tend to prefer Democrats.
Like I said, the vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. Give me a break.
