GilfordGrok

that both of them chose to try to establish their bona fides as true blue conservatives.

Balderdash!

Margo tries this stunt here at about 4:28 into the video here.  Paraphrased (some), she says:

What is the difference between Gus and myself?  While we are both fiscal conservatives....I've had people from Doug Lambert to Skip Murphy to Dick Hickock actually, basically, say that to me in the past two years that I have been on the budget committee.

I fail to remember EVAH calling her a fiscal conservative.  Perhaps I may have; she's more conservative than Derek Tomlinson, but that's a rather low bar to step over.  I also point out that her claim to fiscal conservatism is not too well served by this post I did here "Not mine to give"; obviously she does believe that it is her job to recommend that it is her's to give where I wrote (and quoted Margo):

Town budget season is wrapping up all over NH; my hamlet is no exception. Last part of our job was to Recommend / NOT Recommend four Petition Warrant articles to fund charities with taxpayer monies (if that sounds like gobbledy-gook, see after the jump). Of COURSE, there are those that have no compunction about donating their fellow citizens tax money for charitable purposes - regardless of whether those citizens would normally support that charity.  One of my fellow Budgeteers tried to equate donating to these social services organizations with funding the Town's Fire Dept; after all, we pay for the latter's service and thus, fails to see any difference:

"Back in the day, our families used to provide this service but that doesn't exist anymore for most of us. So many of us will rely on these services at some point in our lifetime.  So I don't think it is like giving to  other charitable organizations which are kind of nice but you don't need them in your life."

The dirty secret why it doesn't exist is because we let it - it has become far easier let to of that responsibility and outsource the care of our families to society at large than do it ourselves. Before I get into the argument of why this is a straw-man argument (as well as being irrelevant)...

....What she fails to mention is significant:

First: The Fire Dept IS a town dept - we appropriate monies, and we control their expenditures.  The employees of the dept are under Town control - the Town Administrator and the Selectboard.  Not running right?  Correction applied - and there is accountability.

Two: These charitable groups / social services / non-governmental organizations do not report to the Town Administration OR to the voters - we have NO idea where the money can really go OR apply corrections if badly spent.  In fact, there is NO accountability and therefore, not the "same" as the Fire Dept.

Third: she implicitly argues for Bigger Government via "scope creep" (e.g., "our families used to provide this service") - it is easier to just let Govt do just one more thing - it's a great idea!...

...For me, it is the height of hubris that a politician should force fellow taxpayers to pay for charities that they might not otherwise support.  Charity by Government is simply taxes collected by force and given to others - a redistribution of wealth by politicians.

No, I would, overall, consider Margo, while being a very nice lady, a moderate.  A LOT of people are now claiming to be fiscally conservative this year solely in that the political winds have changed (re: TEA Party movement).

I will also add this - Given the vitriol that Alice Boucher and Evans Juris have shown to both Gus and Connie, their endorsement of you in the papers today does not help. I will never forget the "queen bee being ignored" look and speech from Ms. Boucher as Gus and Connie overrode her wishes in do the right thing and fire Juris.  Talk about madder than hell that her high perch as Chair made no difference in the Right Two doing the Right thing.

I still chuckle over the imagery.

No, Margo, you are not the Biggest Conservative in the race.  While Gus is not as conservative as I, he is more conservative as you.

*****

Dale tries that same "cover me as a fiscal conservative" during his part of the video.  Real conservatives don't have to quibble about definitions of who is and who isn't a conservative; they just are. 

Dale is not and is trying, as many Liberal Progressives have done before, to "turn" or shade the language.  

He then tried it in his Letter to the Editor today in the Citizen:

I first want to thank the voters of Gilford for the privilege of serving on the town's Budget Committee over the past three years. This committee has considerable powers over the town and school budgets, and it is critical that its members be thorough, balanced, and open to the needs and opinions of all Gilford residents.

Sure, as he starts out in the beginning, that the committee needs to be balanced - and then attempts the impudent course of action to paint himself as a conservative.  What he has done has contribute to the balance - but from the liberal side of the aisle (which one would know if either attending the meetings OR watching the video of the meetings here on GilfordGrok).  He always takes the side of NOT reducing budgets!

I am asking for your vote for a second term on the Budget Committee because I believe I help provide this thorough, balanced approach.

From the Liberal side!

I have participated fully and regularly in all committee functions, and have worked with others to conduct thorough and demanding reviews of all departmental budgets. I led the effort to provide more detailed information on the ballot by requiring that vote totals are shown alongside recommendations from the Budget Committee and the Selectmen. I will continue to push for fair and balanced budget reviews.

While the Budget Committee has the right and the responsiblity to conduct a tough final review and to make any budget revisions they deem necessary, they also have a responsibility to demonstrate a complete understanding of the ramifications of their changes, and to be as specific as possible about why the changes were made.

Sure, he has tried that by denigrating my efforts when I believed that the Library budget was too high in comparison to not only the inflation rate but also in relation to the other, more important departments in the Town.  When the Library wanted a 7% rise in spending, and the Police, Fire, and DPW were just about at the inflation rate, I said "too much".  Period.  It didn't take a PhD to see that philosophically the amount was too much - yet he fought tooth and nail to have the subcommittee's determination of such overturned and that subcommittee disbanded.

But he doesn't talk to that.

Finally, I have been and will remain a strong supporter of school athletics and the small group of non-governmental agencies that appear on the ballot each year.

A true fiscal conservative believes that charity is an individual act.  It is not, as Dale believes, a communitarianism that all should give to certain charities regardless of individual freedom of choice.

My support of these departments or line items does not mean that their budgetary requests are treated any differently.

His actions belie his words - the Library has ALWAYS been that which he has fought for the most.

What it means is that I approach their budget requests with an open mind, and with an understanding that we represent the entire community of Gilford residents - many of whom expect and in some cases rely heavily on the services that these departments and institutions provide.

A fiscal conservative leans more on individualism - not a dependency on government.

I have identified myself as a conservative, and have voted accordingly, all of my life. My brand of conservatism is one that respects and recognizes the value of differing opinions.

Dale, you can identify yourself as a conservative all day long.  The actual truth?  You can't get theah from where you are!  Redefining conservatism to once again fit your campaign is a schlock move.

Remember folks, this is the guy who basically was against the BudComm before he wanted to be on it.  To wit:

• that he and his wife signed the Petition Warrant a few years ago to GET RID of the Budget Committee
• He campaigned the first time on a platform that he would recuse himself from his wife's department (she is the Chief Librarian) budget.  Then it devolved to just not voting on anything dealing with his wife's salary.
• Upon being elected, he grandly announced at the first meeting that he would vote on anything he wanted to and that there was nothing we could do to stop him.  Legally, he was right.  Morally, he broke his campaign promises to all of his supporters.

Fiscal Conservative - what a crock!  While he *might* have once or twice voted for something that might have reduced spending, I cannot, for the life of me, remember (and given that it is Dale, I should have!). 

Frankly, he has been in opposition the entire time on the BudComm to the true fiscal conservatives on the BudComm since arriving - and those would include myself, Doug Lambert, Sue Green, Terry Stewart for starters.

And Gus, when he was the rep from the Selectboard.