GilfordGrok

A response to Kip Allen's Letter to the Editor in the Daily Sun:

To the Editor,

Kip Allen in his Letter to the Editor (Daily Sun, P7) wrote: "Social justice and moral obligation are not just words but ideas that a great nation was upon"

Methinks you forgot about a couple of words - but even after adding them back in, it still would be wrong.

The operative phrases in our country's founding was NOT "social justice" (a more nebulous term has never been created in the annals of social engineering and political tax raising) - but "equality under the law".  Neither was it "moral obligation"; rather, the phrase "the freedom ability to decide for oneself and one's family unhindered by Government" would be a far better fit.

This country was built on the singular (and still radical today) notions of individual freedom and personal sovereignty. What Kip Allen wishes to place upon us all is an overarching mechanism to force behavior according to the Progressive ideal of "social justice".  The problem is when you ask for specific definitions of that term and compare that to those of "individual freedom and choice", one can tell their political acknowledge the role of freedom, and then the word "but" appears as in usage that screams out "but that it should be subservient or limited in the cause of 'the common good' in one fashion or another".  While I agree we do have responsibilities to others, one has the innate freedom to decide for themselves whether to help or not - a voluntary and free choice of will.  However, every time I see his two phrases used together, I also see their implication of "and I will make you adhere to such by force of law".  And laws are not voluntary.

I am not so naive that all human behavior is such that we need no laws - unfortunately, there are those that believe that what belongs to others should be taken from them - we call those people "criminals".  

Often times, there are also others that delight in forcing behaviors upon others that they would not ordinarily perform - we call those people "bullies".

And then there are people who do both - forcibly take from some to give to others and then also demand that we act in ways that are pleasing to them and not what we would chose ourselves - we call them Progressive Politicians.

To the editor,

This letter is to all you “socialist creeps” (Jack Stephenson) and “meek little sheep” (Bev Buker) and all the other “unpatriotic” Americans. How ridiculous! The American dream belongs to all of

us. It does not belong just to a select few who would hijack it for themselves if they were allowed to do so.

Social justice and moral obligation are not just words but ideas that a great nation was upon. Stubbornness and name-calling are part of the problem, not the solution. As Abe Lincoln one said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Let’s move on, be real and try to get along.

See you at the voting booth.

Kip Allen
Gilford

Posted by Skip at 07:39 PM | Permalink

In response to a Letter to the Editor from Tim Sullivan in the Daily Sun (P7):

To the Editor,

Tim Sullivan, in his Letter of 6/25/10 wrote the following: "Hopefully the selectmen and Budget Committee members of Gilford are not so busy...that they don’t have time to actually read the newspapers and either watch or listen to the news on a regular basis. Their decision making should be based on the outlook for the situation in their community and not their own personal situations and affinity for pet projects."

I have two words for you: "You betcha!".

Speaking for myself: These are hard economic times; I believe they aren't getting better anytime soon. For the past two years, even though Gilford budgets have been pretty much flat, I have been critical and questioning of any expenditure for new programs or purchases (e.g., "can we put off the new phone system or that new truck until the economy gets better?") in an attempt to move property taxes even lower; during these times, we can and should spend less. And yes, if that means cutting back on lesser priorities, those "less than absolutely essential services", so be it.

Even town government, should only do what would ordinarily be difficult for even groups of individuals to do; it should not be doing things simply because we have grown lazy, outsourced our individual responsibilities to others, or that it “feels right and good". Sadly, we seem all too willing to shuck off those responsibilities with a response of "someone will do it", "there ought to be a law", or "government should/will take care of it".

However, there are those that absolutely believe that Government has to spend more to take care of its citizens and should always do more; they have it exactly wrong. American style of governance as envisioned by our Founders, was built solely to protect our Rights, be a limited government that relied more on people taking care of themselves, and not be in the business of taking care of our every need (real or perceived). They never speak of the harm they do to others by raising taxes to pay for higher spending, for that would spoil the narrative.

Tim is right - this is not a time to spend.

To the editor,

I apologize to the editor and the readership for writing the too long letters to the editor. I just wanted to thank Ward 4 Councilor Brenda Baer for her recent letter further illuminating “the whole economic picture”. She not only expounded on several points in my recent letter (LDS 6/19) but even expanded on the reality of our nation’s national, state and local current economic malaise. Whether it be the Huot Center or a police station re-construction, these are not the best of times to be taking on these projects with their construction and legacy costs.

In my letter I pointed out, “a brief spurt of building activity...winding up with the expiration of the house purchase tax credit”. I am now amazed to fi nd how prescient an observation that has been revealed to be. On 6/23 new home purchase data for May was released by the Department of Commerce. The report indicated a dramatically grimmer than expected result. Sales of new homes collapsed an unprecedented 33-percent from April, the May rate of sales now being the lowest level on record. Sales by some economist’s measure were expected to decline by 19-percent to a 410,000 rate; instead the Commerce report indicated May sales of new homes was now showing an annual rate of 300,000. The April report that indicated a purchase rate of 540,000 annually was revised down to 410,000.


On 11/11/06 then selectman Alice Boucher was quoted in a local paper as saying, ‘”There could be several reasons why a home might sell well below market value but it does not necessarily mean there is an error in the assessment”. This was in response to then Selectman Grant suggesting that the Board of Selectman consider having a town wide property re-evaluation, as some data was showing some Gilford homes selling below their assessed value. In response to that Nov. ‘06 article local Realtor Dick Vaillanicourt offered an opinion that the local real estate market was just going through a transition, and that given the government’s strong efforts to support housing that property values should start to show improvement in the spring. I believe most assessments certainly do seem to reflect fair value these days!

While well intentioned, sometimes we just get it all wrong. Hopefully the selectmen and Budget Committee members of Gilford are not so busy with their professional duties at work and their time consumed in executing the duties and responsibilities of their town offi ces that they don’t have time to actually read the newspapers and either watch or listen to the news on a regular basis. Their decision making should be based on the outlook for the situation in their community and not their own personal situations and affinity for pet projects.

Tim Sullivan
Gilford

Posted by Skip at 06:09 PM | Permalink