Goffstown Soapbox

Friday, April 29, 2005

EZ Pass in NH

I found this article in the Union Leader this morning.

  • Complicating E-ZPass:Make the switch already


  • It goes on about how tokens are an obsolete technology, and how NH is behind the curve for electronic toll collection.
    EZ pass is a great technology. Tokens should not be done away with yet.
    People should realize that there are draw backs to this technology as well. First is there could be a computer glitch at the toll booth and the toll is not subtracted from the account, triggering a ticket for not paying a toll. The next draw back is with the data collected from the EZ Pass. Did you know that that can tell if you were speeding?
    It is a real simple process, when you enter the toll booth it subtracts the toll and stamps it with a time and date, the same thing happens when you leave the toll road. They then compare the two times and can determine how fast you traveled from point A to point B. Cute huh!! So now you can be fined for speeding with out a police officer present. What if the clocks are our of synchronization at the two toll booths? It does happen.
    Do people really want this kind of intrusion into their lives?
    The government will also know exactly where you are or at the least where you go.
    EZ Pass is just another way to tax people through the back door. And I for one would rather the toll collection system stay in the stone age.
    The reason for the delay in implementation is the highway dept. wants to get rid of the discounts for commuters. Which is bad in the long run, more traffic will be diverted to side roads and then they will not be collecting as many tolls and may consider raising them. Not very smart is it? And if the EZ Pass is discounted after a few years they will decide that they are not making enough so the eliminate or reduce the discount.
    All in all there are a lot of problems with the EZ Pass system.

    M Loveless

    Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    Goffstown Budget Insanity

    Hi all, I was just rereading the articles that had passed during the last town meeting. Also was reading a history of past tax increases. And have been completely amazed at the slow incremental increases to the tax rate for this town.

    It is high time the voters of this town stand up to this ever increasing taxation. This town needs to get back to the basics and leave the fluff alone.
    The town is approving budgets well beyond the actual estimates of revenues; -2004: $14,828,949 and 2005:$16,161,550 - That is 2 million dollar increase in just one year.

    But that is not the kicker for this, estimated revenues are only $7,981,900 this year, and last year $7,159,170. If we keep spending like this this town will be broke very soon. Town budgets should not be run on a deficit. Very fuzzy math going on if you ask me. The operating budget should not be higher than the estimated revenues for the year period. It is time to start cutting spending. One easy way to curtail this growth of the budget is for the voters not to approve it in the first place. By not approving the budget spending is frozen at the last year's level; stopping the need for a tax increase. Then it is time for the people to hold the town governments feet to fire to find ways to reduce spending back to where the town is operating within its means.

    On to other waste of tax dollars, we have been spending roughly 1.8 million dollars per year for road improvements. That is also for last year as well. What improvements have been made? Several dead end streets were repaved, when it was not needed at the time. A small section of Shirley Hill Road was repaved. The roads that actually need repair have been neglected over the past two years. I expect better planning and use of these dollars when it costs 1.8 million a year. It is a waste to repair a road that does not need it.

    Another waste is appropriating $15000 for the Goffstown Main Street Program. Towns should not be susidizing non profit organizations. This for the non profit to do by raising money through donations, sales etc. $15000 adds up quick. If townhall wishes to help this non-profit they should consider tax breaks and other things that do not affect the pocket book of the taxpayer. The taxpayer should not be forced to susidize an organization.

    The school budget and spending must also be brought under control. The people cannot support the constant increases from the School district. They could have come up with a better way to implement kindergarten for starters. Especially after having it rammed down our throats by a few people. There are many areas of their budget that could also be reined in to stop the constant raising of taxes. Another way to curtail the costs of schools is to make the school board a nonsalaried position. The board members also need to remember they are not spending their money they are spending our money. There is no need for a capital reserve fund, if they have money left over from their budget it should be redirected back to the taxpayers of this town and taxes adjusted so they do not overcharge again.

    Common sense will go a long way toward making this town affordable and livable. Lack of common sense and respect for the hard working people of this town will lead to sky rocketing taxes, a town going broke, and people moving away from the town.
    M Loveless

    Florida has done something right for once

    I was reading the news this morning and found this article:
  • Florida Governor Signs Deadly Force Law


  • It is amazing a law like this had to be passed by the legislature there, but it is a start. Did you know the we( the citizens of New Hampshire) have always had the right to defend our property and lives from the time we ratified our state constitution? We were so obsessed with the right to defend ourselves we had it written into our constitution, not once but twice. I am very surprised that other states were not concerned with this.

    The idea of having to retreat from someone threatening your life is an absurd notion. People tend to believe we only need the police department to protect its citizenry. When has a police officer been around to actually stop a crime as it is happening? The police are a reactionary force, always arriving after the crime has happened. Then they get around to the work of bringing the criminal to justice. This is fine and they should continue this work, but if a person is surprised what is he to do?

    The gun control nuts are already speaking out against this law. Say it will "create a "Wild West" mentality in public, where residents may shoot first and ask questions later." Why not shoot first and ask questions later? If some breaks into my house they will be met with a hail of gunfire, then I will ask why they broke in. And the answer is simple, they broke in to either do me and my family harm or they were going to steal my stuff( which I work very hard for).

    If you ask me I would opt for the wild west mentality. Crime will be reduced, because the burglar, mugger etc. will not know if he is going to die.

    So hats off to Florida.
    MAL

    Sunday, April 24, 2005

    More Food for Thought

    Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an in tolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

    -- from Thomas Paine's Common Sense

    I was on a website rereading Common Sense. And Thought this would be a fitting quote to post.
    Did you know that the schools really don't spend any time on this old pamphlet? I asked my daughter about it the other day and she did not even know what I was talking about. I guess it is too radical for the nanny state to teach to the moldable minds of today's children.
    I also found out that they do not really teach the Constitution. Ohh, they go over the basics and then pick and choose from the Bill of Rights. I asked my daughter about this and she could only tell me about the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. After hearing this I decided to have a talk with this teacher. When I confronted her about this her reasoning was the rest were not as important and she had limited time to cover the material. (Needless to say I went off the deep end on this). I explained to her that all ten of the Bill of Rights was all important and all children should learn them. Many brave men fought and died for the rights laid out in the Constitution, and it is a disservice to those brave souls to do anything other than teach it in its entirety.
    I ended up getting nowhere with this teacher. I wrote letters to principal, school board, and any one in a position of authority to no avail. Then I set my daughter down and we read the constitution in its entirety and I explained what every article meant, and I hope it has stuck with her.

    Saturday, April 23, 2005

    Sheep

    "The left takes it's vision seriously--more seriously that it takes the rights of other people. They want to be our shepherds--but that requires us to be sheep."
    Thomas Sowell


    I read this once and it hit home. How much more true can this statement be? The left wants to take us down a road where no one has any responsibilities, except that the State controls our lives. Here is couple of examples: from former President Bill Clinton:

    "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."

    "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

    So you see the left really does want to make us sheep. These were public statements from our former President. Limiting rights, reining in rights of the people. What was this country thinking when he was elected twice? The only way to turn us into sheep is if we quietly, and meekly let them do it. And there seems to be more sheep around these days. Many children exit school not really knowing their rights as citizens of this country, many people are willing to cry foul when the minimum wage is not increased. Lots of people believe that the government owes them a living, that government knows better, that wealth should be redistributed; the government should pay for health care (I remember a time when people thought government should supply health insurance now the cry is healthcare). People are willing to give up rights to feel safe. People believe it is the job of the government's to take care of them. And everyone’s a victim.

    Monday, April 18, 2005

    Legal Minds at work

    Hi trying some new features hope the new links work properly. Well on the the Post.

    I read a letter to the editor, in the Goffstown News. That really began to get me riled.
    The letter was named Two morality plays: one shows how to die, the other how not to. I t was submitted by a couple of lawyers, whose names can be found in the link i supplied at the end of this post.

    The letter compared the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II. These two deaths are not even comparable. One was out and out state sanctioned murder and the other was an old mans dying wishes. The only thing comparable of the two deaths was the media circus swirling around both of them, from there the similarities part ways. Even the Pope spoke out against the treatment of Ms. Schiavo. She was a young woman that could breathe on her own, swallow her own saliva, and could possibly have been rehabilitated to a better quality of life.( if only given a chance, so many things left to question with her death). While the Pope lived a very full life, was succumbing to Parkinson's disease, and never fully recovered from the flu or pneumonia. Like I said not even close to a comparison.

    This letter rails about Ms. Schiavo's situation as being a private matter. Not to be interfered with by the courts, Congress, or anybody outside the family. It should have been a private matter, but she left no clear indication of her wishes. Her parents disagreed with the the husbands assertion that she would want to die. His assertion is very suspect when he has moved on with his life and started a family with another woman. The Courts sided with the husband and accepted hearsay as testimony for her wishes, also extremely suspect in that the only testimony accepted was from the husband's family. Both judge Greer and Attorney Felos have connections to the hospice where Ms. Schiavo was a patient. Lots of questions all around the entire case. The Pope on the other hand, made his wishes known and his doctors and staff made sure his wishes were met. Nothing to question about his demise. He was able to speak for himself, Ms. Schiavo could not.

    Congress stepped in to help the situation, creating a firestorm in the process. But, even they could see there were too many questions surrounding the Schiavo case. They passed a law to help the situation, but the courts did not follow it assuming Congress over stepped their bounds. The only thing wrong with this law is that it did not go far enough. It should have been more wide reaching, not designed for one individual. There are many in this country that are in similar situations as Ms. Schiavo. It should have set a standard of complete review by the federal courts in disputed cases such as hers. This would help with all disputed cases even ones with living wills. There are at least two cases that come to mind with living wills being disregarded, one in Georgia and one in Boston MA.( another post on these later )

    It seems even lawyers can be blinded by standing behind the "Rule of law". Squealing and squawking about the "hijacking of the legislative process". Claiming the Congress had over stepped its bounds, etc. etc. when passing Terris Law.
    These Lawyers really need to read the constitution in full, instead of case law.( which IMO has perverted the original intent of the document that means so much to me and many others.) In argument to these magnificent legal minds, I refer them to Article 3 of the Constitution: which gives the Legislative branch authority to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Judicial branch does not decide their jurisdiction. So, if we want to discuss outrageous action, scrutiny should fall on to the courts for disobeying a constitutional directive from Congress. Instead we hear all this caterwauling about Congress not respecting the "Rule of law". How about the courts respecting the Constitution??

    This country needs to get back to the principles it was founded upon. Congress setting jurisdiction is a valid check and balance of the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch need to quit considering outside sources of law when deciding cases, it does not matter what other countries courts do in legal situations. Most of those countries do not even hold the basic tenants of our legal system, that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

    Published in the Goffstown News 04/28/2005

    Friday, April 15, 2005

    Food for Thought

    He is a quote to think about over the weekend.
    I will probably post more on this quote later on.

    Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) - "I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

    Wednesday, April 13, 2005

    Taxes again

    I read an interesting article today about the latest the state legislature hidden tax increase. They have decided to raise the fines on traffic violations, among other things. The odd thing about it was the fines were set in a closed-door committee meeting and then attached to the budget bill to vote on next week. What really burns me is that our illustrious rep in the legislature says we need a balanced budget and these increases will help accomplish it.
    Here is a quote from the article:

    The fine increases would raise about $10 million, said Rep. Robert Wheeler, R-Goffstown.

    Several committee members said some of the increases were too steep.

    "We don't want to infringe on anybody's favorite fine," responded Wheeler. "We need a balanced budget. We humbly ask for your assistance."


    These fines were set arbitrarily behind closed doors, with out public meetings or even discussion on the floor of the house. This also burns me to no end. This should not be done without public hearings especially when it is going to be added to the entire budget.
    The article also stated that the budget committee plans to spend a 29 million dollar surplus from last year as well. This money should be directed back to the taxpayers of this state not spent. This also means taxes should be lowered across the board to avoid this kind of surplus again, as they are collecting too much tax. That is a lot of cold hard cash that will get spent on garbage. Or better yet there are many outstanding bonds taken by the state, why not pay them off.
    I believe all meetings of committees, boards and sessions of the legislature or any legislative body should be public. Not hidden in a back room somewhere or closed to the public. All government should be transparent to the people, nothing hidden. When they are behind closed doors, they find new ways to spend our money or come up with new ways to take it from us. Nothing good has ever came from a closed meeting.
    It seems Mr. Wheeler, and also Mr. McRae, are very fond of closed meetings in our town as well. I was reading the minutes from the past few selectmen meetings, and they have adjourned to a closed meeting in two of the last three meetings. There is no telling what was discussed in these meetings because the minutes are sealed and not viewable by the general public. Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of a government that stands for the people. Secrecy breeds tyranny.

    Friday, April 08, 2005

    The state of the State

    I can honestly say this State is going to hell in a hand basket. And Quick too.
    We have representatives that could care less about the state constitution and have said so. This is an affront to all freedom loving people in the State. If our representatives are not concerned with the constitutionality of the laws they are passing, then there is nothing but an overbearing and out of control government sitting at the statehouse. The good people of this state need to get up and push the lawbreakers out of their offices and replace them with true servants of the people.

    Here is an example of what I mean.
    Driving home one evening from work last week. I heard a state rep. talking about how great this bill for increasing the minimum wage was, and the host of the show asked her about the constitutionality of this bill. Her response was that she never concerns herself with the constitutionality of a bill; her only concern was for passing legislation good for the people. I nearly had to turn around and pick my jaw up off of the road.
    If our founding fathers were alive today they would have immediately had her tarred and feathered, then run out on a rail!!
    Where does one get off on not concerning themselves with the constitutionality of legislation?? I thought she took an oath to protect and defend the constitution when she took office. They still do that right?? Last I heard they still did. This kind of attitude from elected reps. must end and quick. Constitutionality should be the first priority of any elected person then if it passes muster it should be introduced as a bill to be considered, not the other way around. An elected rep.'s first priority is his/her constituents, but if it harms the rights already laid out by the constitution the constituents must be informed that it does so. And then work to find away to promote a better bill for those constituents. (Which is constitutional)
    This rep. seems to believe that government is the cure all for everything or else she would not be recommending such a bill. I have no idea of her political ideology. But saying she is not concerned with constitutionality tends to tell me that her concern is for ruling the people and not serving the people.
    The minimum wage law is a noble idea, but I do not see where the government has the power to dictate such a thing. (This includes the federal government as well.) It is not their place to dictate what wage an employer should pay an employee. And they (the reps.) are not concerned because it is not their money they are spending. (See the David Crocket post below).
    M Loveless

    Thursday, April 07, 2005

    Interesting Story about David Crockett

    Here is something I think you will enjoy. Its message is as fitting today as it was then. It is about the powers of congress as seen by the great David Crockett rep. TN.

    I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

    "Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

    He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

    Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

    Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning, and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

    I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied :

    "You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

    He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said:

    "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

    I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

    "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

    "The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

    "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

    "So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.

    "'Yes,' said he,'such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.'

    "With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him:'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted,' He replied:

    "'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.'

    "I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---'

    "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

    "This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

    "'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.'

    "'Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn't break your gun for one snap.'

    "'No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay's purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

    "'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

    "'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true!'

    "'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'

    "'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!'

    "Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

    "'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

    "'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

    "I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

    "'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'"

    "I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

    "'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

    "He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, J will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

    "'If I don't,' said I,'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

    "'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

    "'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'

    "'My name is Bunce.'

    "'Not Horatio Bunce?'

    "'Yes.'

    "'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.'

    "We shook hands and parted. "It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

    "At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

    "Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

    "It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

    "He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

    "Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children--he had about seven of them-- began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

    "I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

    "'Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.'

    "'He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: 'The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.' It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven.' No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand--grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

    "I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word--I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

    "But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted--at least, they all knew me.

    "In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

    "'Fellow-citizens--I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

    "I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

    "'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.'

    "'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

    "He came upon the stand and said:

    "'Fellow-citizens--It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

    "He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

    "'I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

    "Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

    "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

    The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

    I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This story appeared in the Life Of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis, published by Porter & Coates in 1884.

    Monday, April 04, 2005

    Taxes taxes taxes

    I don't know if any one has noticed but Local taxes have increased again. If we keep up at this rate, an increase every year, we will end up like the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Where you have a mass exodus of the middle class and all that is left are the rich and the poor. I t seems to me that this town is more concerned with raising taxes than the economic development of the town(The true source of revenue for a town). There seems to be more concern with the town making money instead of the town government existing for the betterment of the town.
    Recently there was a surplus of money raised from taxes and not spent. Instead of sending this money back to the people( who's money it is in the first place). It was put into a slush fund apparently approved of by the voters of this town. Government is a zero sum game, it does not exist to make money. They collect taxes and pay for the services offered by this town and if any is leftover it should be returned to the people that supplied the town the money.
    Every year there is an increase in the taxes collected from the property owners. The latest was 1.38 per thousand. Instead of trying to intice business to come here we just raise taxes. Where is the logic in that? We have a very nice area set aside in this town for a commercial district, lets use it.
    While we are at it we should also begin to spend the money collected more wisely. The first question out of the mouthes of any of the selectmen should be: Do we really need that? And if we do can we afford it? If these questions can't be answered legitimately, then the town does not need it.
    Here are a couple of the things the town spent money on that it has no businuess spending it on:
    Goffstown Main Street Program tax payer funded remodeling of the old village. There are businesses there for the most part. It is a nice idea to make the town more appealing. Let us get real here, this should not be funded with tax money, the local businesses there should bear the brunt of the cost, and if that is not feasible then we have a fund raiser. This way the cost is carried by the people that would willingly support the project. Instead of steadily increasing taxes to maintain a level of funding to the project.
    How about the wasted money on the purchase of land for the new kindergarten last year. The town buys a piece of land only to have it blocked by the residents in that area. It was blocked for good reason too I might add. No one ever considered the impact the new school would have on traffic, water, sewage etc. A gigantic waste of OUR money. And why do we need a whole new bulding for kindergarten in the first place? We have four schools in town already. why could we not upgrade the existing elementary schools? It would have been a great excuse to bring those buildings up to today's standards. There would be no new administration costs, just the cost of adding a few teachers. As it stands now when the new kindergarten is complete we will have to hire teachers, principal, assistant principal, a nurse, etc. etc. , so much added cost and burden to the taxpayer. When I went to school, kindergarten was just down the hall from first grade. We should be trying to find ways to lighten the burden on the taxpayer not add to it!

    Further Rant to Come.....

    Sunday, April 03, 2005

    Flawed Logic

    I have recently read a letter to the editor about the recently past town meeting vote. And was appalled by the logic exhorted by this writer.
    He claims that if there were just 142 more votes the new changes to the town charter would have passed. (Thankfully it did not btw) His thinking is flawed because you cannot count on the next 142 votes to be in the affirmative. Think about it this way, voter turnout was one third at best. One third out of a possible 17000 votes. Even if more turned out you cannot count on all of them to vote the way of the new town charter, and you cannot count on all them to vote against either.
    Later in his letter he berates the people for not voting for the change, for the main reason of not allowing someone that does not live in town to run for elected office. Although this is a good thing, it cannot be the only reason to vote for this measure. There were many flaws in the changes to be made.
    The first of the flaws in the new charter was the changes to the petition process. This change in essence limited the peoples voice in their government. It increased the signatures needed to introduce anything on the town meeting ballot. Very bad flaw indeed.
    The next flaw was the shift of setting the budget from the board of selectmen to the budget committee. Why even have a board of selectmen? Yes he railed about the monopoly that the selectmen holds over the town. But is that a solution? I feel not. The best way to break their monopoly is to put forth better candidates for selectmen, and vote the old ones out of office.
    All shifting power from one board to another does is establish another monopoly in another board.
    The only thing I found good about the changes to the charter was the increasing of the board of selectmen, and increasing the number of elected members of the budget committee.
    The changes to the town charter failed because the concerned people of this town saw that in order gain a couple of nice things they had to lose their voice in the process. Not at all a good thing.
    To vote for a radical change in order to break a monopoly might be great in principle but not good in practice. The best way to effect change is to inject new blood into town hall. Elect people with new ideas, commonsense, and a genuine concern for the town as a whole.

    More to come....

    Friday, April 01, 2005

    Sad Day

    Well it is done.
    Today can go down in history as a day worse than anything that has happened in this great country. You can throw 9/11/01 right out the window.
    Today is a day we have thrown away a life. Because someone felt it was not valuable. Because a court system could not see a problem with the procedure followed in determining ones wishes.
    Who ever heard of hearsay being admissable in a cout of law. And if one is to allow hearsay why not get coorberating testimony from someone that is not going to take sides or has nothing to gain from it.
    What really burns me is the way the media has handled this incident. where are the expose' s on the back ground of this case. If ms. schiavo were an exploding gas tank every reporter in the country would be all over the story. I am tired of hearing how this is a right to die case or a quality of life issue. Life is Life. This woman left no clear indication of her wishes. This whole thing was litigated in a court and gave no consideration for the person involved in this case, the only thing considered was what the husband said she wanted. No one can speak for another person, especially when that person can not speak out for themselves.
    The doctors and pundits claiming that starvation and dehydration is a peacefull way to die are insane. How can they know what another person feels? Have they been starved? dehydrated? People go to jail for for starving a dog, where is the justice? How about we do this this to a serial killer or a child molester.( Ahh we can't do that it is cruel and unusual punishment)
    What kind of sick country is this???
    You know the Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to LIFE , Liberty and the persuit of happiness. The preamble of the Constitution states " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
    A lot of people do not realize what has happened this Month. WE have just witnessed the first case of State sanctioned Euthanasia. And if you think that is good then what life is next?? Some one that has Downs Syndrome? Stroke patient? Or better yet a person that is cross eyed (works for me).
    It Does not end with Schiavo there are others. How about the women Ms Howe in MA., She left a living will and now the hospital wants to let her die against her wishes. Mass. Medical has sued to end life support for this women even though her living will states she wants to continue untill she cannot enjoy her family( this woman has ALS(Lou Gerrig's disease) Her mind is there but the body doesn't function). Like I said what life is next??