A voter recently asked me the following on Facebook: “So how would you make up the revenue short fall; this is a perennial problem in a small state like New Hampshire. It’s either super high property taxes, or high taxes on prepared food rooms and meals, what do you propose?”
Here’s my response:
“High taxes are the result of high spending, so I’d start there.
NH has about a $13B biennial budget, iirc, and I’m sure there’s all kinds of fat in there–maybe it’s time for an audit, plus some flow charts showing us what each department gets and how the money is spent, down to the salaries, pensions, and other liabilities (funded and unfunded). Also, when you allow markets to operate freely, prices go down (unlike when you get the government involved, where they only know one direction, and that’s UP, UP, UP! <–easy to spend other people’s money!).
We are also not getting our monies worth in the current education system, where enrollment and results are going down precipitously as costs go up, so that needs an overhaul too. Of course, when Democrats refuse allocated funds like the $46M that was supposed to go to PUBLIC charter schools, it’s easy to see where to place some of the blame.
So what do I propose? Embracing the NH Advantage in its truest sense, allowing our friends and neighbors to run their businesses as unfettered as possible, fixing the schools by introducing more parental choices which will drive down costs while improving actual educational outcomes (doesn’t seem unreasonable that for approx. $16K per child, the kid should be able TO READ), reducing business taxes, and auditing and possibly eliminating unnecessary programs.
Nothing is written in stone, of course, and should allowing more freedom not work, we can always tweak things, but here’s one thing I 100% know, more and more government involvement in our lives leads to worse and worse outcomes! I want us to #LiveFreeAndThrive. That starts with “Live free”!”
Imagine if, instead of the insane amount of vetoes Governor Sununu had to sign over the past two years, he instead had majorities in the House and Senate to help push through his pro-taxpayer, pro-business policies!
Governor Sununu needs YOUR help to put me in the Senate. He says:
“CARLA GERICKE will be a strong voice and vote in the State Senate to protect our NH Advantage and to stop an income tax.” ~ Gov. Sununu
You know it to be true. You should also know that my 22-year incumbent opponent, Lou D’Allesandro (82) has now TWICE voted for an income tax. He is rated a “Constitutional Threat” by the NH Liberty Alliance. You cannot afford to give him another term!
The time has come for new leadership!
Help Governor Sununu by voting for me, CARLA GERICKE, on Nov. 3rd. Thank you!
If you have been watching the advent of petty little tyrants and Control Freaks who think they can demand what you wear when you leave the house, you may be as surprised as I am that the City of Manchester voted last night NOT to implement a citywide mask mandate. Thank you!
Said Alderman Mike Porter: “We’ve all received, I don’t know how many emails – hundreds I guess – and phone calls. I personally wear a mask. I strongly encourage it. We’ve already heard from the public – they do not want this.”
Damn straight, Skippy! The public does not want Manchester to devolve into East Berlin. If you want to wear a mask, wear one, if you don’t, don’t. It’s really that simple! Thank you to all the aldermen who did the right thing and voted for freedom and against tyranny. Read more at the Union Leader, Manchester aldermen reject citywide mask mandate…
The City did vote for a mask mandate in government buildings, but carved out exceptions for voting, which leads me to believe they KNOW their mandates are unConstitutional and will not withstand legal scrutiny.
Said Alderman Roy: “We already know there’s not going to be any enforcement or any consequences. Let’s talk about the unintended consequences – we know Nashua has a mask ordinance, and they’re in court. It’s a useless ordinance. People need to be able to make their own choices.”
Here’s the letter I submitted to the City of Manchester on Monday:
Dear Manchester City Officials,
In a free society, we each get to decide according to our own risk profiles how we care to behave, meaning if you want to go out in public while wearing a mask, wear one, if you don’t, don’t. It’s really that simple!
Forcing people to do things to their bodies against their will should never be tolerated. It is unConstitutional and immoral. You do not own me, my body, or my decisions about what I wear in public. If I wanted someone to tell me how to dress when I leave the house, I’d move to Saudi Arabia.
If you want to persuade me to behave in a certain fashion voluntarily, you need to make a credible, cogent, and convincing case. You cannot do this, because New Hampshire’s COVID data and the data on mask efficiency does not support your suggested mandate at all.
The data clearly shows that vast majority of NH’s fatal cases are in LTC facilities; the survival rate of the disease if contracted, as President Trump, Nashua’s Mayor Donchess, and Mayor Craig’s own daughter can attest, is more than 99%. The City’s proposed mask mandate has now been on the agenda for several months… where is the health “emergency”?
A mask mandate panders to irrational fears. It encourages a snitching class. It asks too much of our law enforcement, who are on the record saying they do not want this. Frankly, a mask mandate sounds like nasty, totalitarian, dystopian, Control Freak nonsense to me. Making our police officers enforce such nonsense pits them against law-abiding citizens, which seems unwise at a time of already heightened tensions.
If you proceed with the implementation of a Manchester mask mandate, I have no doubt you will be sued both as representatives of the City and in your personal capacities for violations of our civil liberties. I implore you to do the right thing now, and just say “NO” to this mask mandate proposal.
Thank you for your time.
Republican State Senate Nominee in District 20
Ward 11 Manchester Homeowner and Voter
Several articles appear in today’s Union Leader regarding the City’s attempt to reintroduce a mandatory mask mandate with a $1,000 fine that will be enforced by police and fire, leading to unnecessary confrontations with the public.
Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center, New Hampshire’s free market think tank, gets it right, when he asked “When is a mask mandate warranted?” saying, in part:
“Manchester aldermen are considering a mandate that would carry a $1,000 fine. City Health Department Director Anna Thomas told aldermen the point of the ordinance would be to educate the public about the importance of wearing masks.
No, the purpose of a public relations campaign is to educate. The purpose of a mandate is to force compliance. And the purpose of a fine is to punish.
Manchester Community College charges only $215 per credit. For $1,000, you could take a course in the Health Sciences curriculum, say, Probability & Statistics, learn more about the value of mask wearing, and still have $140 left over…
A mandate is an extraordinary measure to be reserved for the most extraordinary emergencies. New Hampshire’s infection rate remains well below 1 percent, its hospital capacity high, its voluntary mask wearing common. Even if mask mandates are comforting, it’s hard to make the case that they’re necessary to protect public health at this time.
And that — necessity — is the determining factor. The coercive power of government is not a tool with which to fine-tune people’s sensibilities. It is a last resort to be deployed when all other options are exhausted and the consequences of inaction are most dire.”
In “Both sides weigh in on Manchester mask proposal ahead of meeting” several City aldermen express their concerns with a mask mandate:
“Ward 8 Alderman Mike Porter said his opinion on the mandate hasn’t changed in the weeks since it was first proposed,
‘I strongly oppose a face covering ordinance in the city,’ said Porter over the weekend. ‘I strongly encourage everybody to wear a face covering but will not vote to mandate it. A plain reading of the proposed ordinance places an unnecessary burden on our already overburdened police and fire departments, and has the potential to create negative contacts between the public and our first responders.’
Porter added he strongly opposes the language involving ‘up to a $1,000 fine.’
‘This ordinance will only encourage a form of mask vigilantism by the public,’ said Porter. ‘The ordinance will create more problems than it solves.’
Other aldermen share Porter’s concerns.
‘I don’t support the ordinance as written because it is too onerous,’ said Ward 7 Alderman Ross Terrio. ‘I will consider a less restrictive ordinance that focuses on education over fines and is limited in what areas are covered.’
‘We should be meeting at City Hall and the mandatory mask ordinance is not needed, as people are doing safe things on their own, and there literally would be no enforcement,’ said Ward 12 Alderman Keith Hirschmann. ‘Seems this administration is following a national agenda.’
‘While I encourage people to wear a mask when they cannot socially distance themselves from others, I stand firm in my opposition to the government mandating an unenforceable ordinance demanding they do so,’ said Alderman-at-Large Joe Kelly Levasseur.”
In “‘High-risk’ behavior by some blamed for Manchester aldermen going remote” the aldermen set themselves up for a lawsuit by admitting they simply don’t want to face the public:
“‘High-risk behavior’ by members of the public is being cited as the reason Manchester’s aldermanic meetings will now be held remotely, after officials said the health and safety of staff and others were put at risk…
Ward 8 Alderman Mike Porter reacted to the decision in a social media post.
‘If elected officials can’t meet in person at City Hall — appropriately socially-distanced, wearing masks when moving about … then clearly masks are not the answer,’ he wrote. ‘Furthermore, if this is the precedent then schools should also be fully remote. If we as elected leaders can’t meet in person then kids and teachers should not meet in-person.’”