GilfordGrok

The great folks at the Meadowbrook Farm concert venue here in Gilford, NH were kind enough to hand out tickets for the Wednesday Sammy Hagar concert to regular customers. Taking them up on their offer, I decided to go. Being the lover of music that I am, how could I not?  Sammy did not disappoint. Starting just after eight and playing until quarter to eleven, Hagar provided the nearly packed house with non-stop jamming on a stage that was clearly reflective of the raucus "beach party" atmosphere that defines a Hagar live performance. The show started with a set made up of older material. Little White Lies and the totally smokin' Montrose tune, Rock Candy were my favorites. Guitarist Vic Johnson wowed the house with his awsome guitar-slinging. After a very short intermission, long-time Van Halen bassist Mike Anthony opened with an astounding solo performance as good as anything I recall from the several Van Halen performances I attended during my teenage years. The second half consisted mainly of Hagar era Van Halen tunes which were good, although I prefer his solo stuff and was therefore more fond of the first. The last time I saw Sammy was back in 1983 for the Three Lock Box tour. Unlike some other older performers, he has certainly held up well through the years!

Posted by Skip at 07:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It has long been held that in the political world, news less than positive or not beneficial to the powers that be is best released over the weekend when a large segment of the population is otherwise occupied “pursuing happiness.” This is true whether talking about the national, state, or local levels of government and their respective attendant bureaucracies. Consider this local story (whether you are a local reader or not, you KNOW this goes on wherever you live, so please, read on...) about a sudden "need of a quick replacement" of a fire truck at $250,000+.  It was buried in the Saturday paper and is currently mistakenly listed in the “school news” section of the online version of that paper.

 

Here is the gist from the Saturday piece (The Citizen requires a free registration for access to some of its stories):

 

Next week, Fire Department officials will be submitting a proposal to the Board of Selectmen for a new fire engine to replace Engine 1...The problem arose when the truck was sent to a shop for routine maintenance repairs that were anticipated to cost the department roughly $1,600. Upon closer examination the engine was found to have "other vehicle issues." The required repairs that would be needed for inspection purposes would have cost upwards of $16,000...The need of a quick replacement is not because Gilford is lacking in fire prevention coverage, but because federal EPA standards change with regard to engine emissions in 2007. This means that if the town was to purchase a post-2007 vehicle, the engine model would be completely new.
"It's not that we are trying to circumvent federal EPA standards. We are simply trying to avoid a first-year-model engine in order to prevent new model glitches, which could end up costing the town even more money," explains Fire Engineer Bill Akerley.

 

The way things are supposed to work in our town, a budget is prepared and then voted upon by the people at town meeting. What we see here are the early seeds of the procedure that will be used to circumvent the normal process of debate and approval (or not) by the voters. They will probably seek to lease this piece of equipment using funds “found” in this year’s approved budget. Next year, the voters will have to approve the payments. “Otherwise,” the town leaders will tell us, “that money we ‘invested’ last year will be lost.”

Posted by Skip at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Imagine the relief we will feel in knowing the additional taxes we are paying are mitigated by the knowledge that our pockets are being picked at a slower rate than in 49 other states."

"New Hampshire residents are forced to drop 12.3 percent of their income into the well of state and local taxes. Then there is what they're paying in federal taxes — income taxes and a variety of other levies. The people of New Hampshire are paying too much in taxes. It is time to demand government get its hands out of our pockets and live within its means — like those of us it is supposed to represent."

Click here to read the whole editorial. Then come back here and finish reading this post to read the letter I submitted to the paper in response.

Editor, The Citizen:

 

I read with great interest the June 5^th Citizen Editorial entitled, “N.H. better off in taxes than 49 other states?” followed by the subtitle, “It's still too much. No matter the comparison, the people are getting soaked.” The piece, discussing the fact that NH has the lowest overall tax burden, ends off by stating, “The people of New Hampshire are paying too much in taxes. It is time to demand government get its hands out of our pockets and live within its means — like those of us it is supposed to represent.” Finally, the Citizen has printed an editorial position that I can really agree with! I have several questions for the unknown editorial writer(s): Why do you contradict yourselves and annually endorse the local “big spender” candidates for elected office and opine against most initiatives that may help citizens better control spending (i.e. tax cap –Matt Lahey) during election time? Has the editorial board of the Citizen had some sort of epiphany? Can I expect the paper to join me in a call for a complete re-examination of how government “services” are delivered at the local level, including the bureaucratic structure the paper typically favors in its reporting and editorials? How long should I hold my breath?

 

Doug Lambert

Gilford, NH

Posted by Skip at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 
Monday’s Laconia Daily Sun carried a story headlined, “New Hampshire residents pay least local taxes nationally.” The article, reporting on a recent study of 2004 US Census economic data, is at the same time both good news and bad news.

 

The good news is just what the article reports: “New Hampshire residents pay less of their income in state and local taxes than people living elsewhere in the country.” The economist who calculated and compared tax burdens in all the states noted the NH results are “an indication the state is very frugal and tries to do a lot without the same resources other states have for revenue.”

 
Unfortunately, the bad news is that the big spenders populating NH’s governing bodies both locally and at the state level continue to grow in power. The report showing NH’s “frugality” leaving more dollars in the wallets of working folks will simply be seen by them as some future “revenue stream” to be tapped. “Besides,” they’ll tell us, “It’s not fair that people in New Jersey and Massachusetts and Alaska pay much more than we do here in the Granite State.”

 
As government bureaucracies at all levels continue to grow at an ever-quickening pace, we must always be vigilant against the taking of our distinct “NH Advantage”- despite the current good news. The minute the folks drop their guard, it will be gone. The fact that we are taxed lower than everybody else doesn’t mean we aren’t overtaxed all the same.

 

Posted by Skip at 07:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)