The recently sworn in Mr Kenney is off and running as the newest Executive Councillor sitting at the table. 

 He may be sitting in the late Ray Burton's seat, but that is where the resemblance ends.

Putting politics before his constituents and promptly forgetting the north country, in his first day of having voting privileges he voted against the Medicaid contract that came before the council.

Fortunately there was only one other vote aligned with his (need a hint as to who?  Begins with Sun and ends with nu as in nothing new here).

Should be an interesting year.

It's really RELIGIOUS COMPULSION!

This comes from a fellow Boxer owner and a retired teacher from Phoenix Az.  Enjoy...

Maryann's Mouth

Does the current political lunacy drive you nuts? Yeah ... me, too!

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

It's really RELIGIOUS COMPULSION!

Over the last few weeks, we have been inundated with "religious freedom" legislation and/or conduct.  However, it should actually be called "religious compulsion" because that's what it really is.

Consider Hobby Lobby, that wondrous store based on religious
 principles - that according to the owners, of course. The U.S.
Supreme Court heard arguments today. Hobby Lobby doesn't
want the Affordable Care Act to force them to provide health
 insurance for employees that includes contraception coverage.
  In other words, Hobby Lobby owners believethey should make
 medical decisions for their employees ... based on theirreligious
 beliefs.  If the SCOTUS decision favors the oh-so pious Hobby Lobby owners, that will open the floodgates.  How about denying insurance coverage for blood transfusions?  Immunizations?

Do you want YOUR employer making medical decisions for you based
 on his/her religion?  That would be religious compulsion.

Weeks ago, Arizona's GOP-controlled legislature passed a bill that
 would have allowed businesses to discriminate against anyone as
 long as that discrimination was based on religious beliefs.  Of
course, these oh-so wise lawmakers didn't really think it through. 
How about a Jewish deli that would have been able to deny service
 to Christians?  Or a boutique owned by a straight woman that would
 have been able to deny entrance to lesbians? (Actually, we all know that this last example is exactly what the legislature had in mind.)  Fortunately, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this obnoxious legislation ... but the Christian right group that wrote the bill is already planning a comeback for next year.

The question you should probably ask yourself:  When might I  be the target of discrimination based on religious belief?  You know,
 you could ... depending on who you are.  Again, religious compulsion.

Now let's take a little trip to that oh-so tolerant state of Tennessee.
 Again (what a coincidence!) the legislature is controlled by
 Republicans.  The House and Senate sent a bill to the Governor's
 desk that would allow students to use religion in any manner they choose.  And, guess what ... that includes bullying.  These lawmakers
 are on a religious mission and to hell with anyone who is the target of bigotry and hatred.  They want to protect religious freedom, don't you know!  Of course, just like the Republican legislators in Arizona, they didn't think this through to the end.  But then, that's nothing new.

This Tennessee abomination will also force students of all beliefs to
 be subjected to the proselytizing by Christians ... that's really the
 group the legislature really wants to protect because what do you think will happen when a Muslim student gets up and starts quoting from the Qur'an? He'll be suspended in a heartbeat and you know it.

The religious right - masked as thinking Republican lawmakers - are calling their actions "religious freedom" yet it's anything but freedom.
  It's religious compulsion.

com·pul·sion

noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions

1.

the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Hobby Lobby wants all its employees forced into abiding by the
 owners' religious beliefs.  Arizona lawmakers wanted to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs - the underlying belief
being Christian - and if you don't conform, oh, well.  The state of Tennessee wants to allow students do behave any damn way
 they choose, based on religious beliefs and that forces all students
 to fall under the Christian thumb.

This kind of reminds me of a Sunday School song I learned long, long ago.  The chorus goes like this:

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

 In the above cases, the light is shining bright ... on the bigotry
and hatred running rampant throughout this country.  The attempt
to hide it under the guise of "religious freedom" is a huge FAIL
because most of us see it for what it is.

It's religious compulsion and it needs to stop.  The only way it will
stop is at the ballot box.  It does no good to complain and then go
vote Republican simply because you are a registered Republican.
  You need to ask yourself if you want to be the target one day (and that could well happen). If the answer is no, then do us all a favor and vote against the GOP candidates ... or just stay home on election day
.  We'll all be better off for sure.

Tucker's Turn: Northern Pass

Scott Brown should take the pledge

From the "Telegraph" with thanks to Jim Tetreault

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Scott Brown should accept Shaheen’s challenge

By DANIEL WEEKS

·         Print ·           1 Comments ·         Share

·           ·          37

Daniel Weeks, the former president of Americans for Campaign Reform, works on education in low-income communities with City Year New Hampshire. He walked with the N.H. Rebellion in January.

Welcome to New Hampshire, Sen. Scott Brown.

As you begin your “listening tour” of the Granite State, you will hear from many of our citizens about jobs, education, health care, taxes, civil liberties, the environment and more. These issues matter deeply to our people, and we’ll tell you where we stand.

But we don’t just care about issues in New Hampshire – we care about process too.

In your travels, you will hear from citizens about another problem that lies at the root of all our other concerns: The corruption of American politics by special interest money.

It’s hardly an armchair issue.

This January, inspired by New Hampshire’s own Doris Haddock, who walked cross country for campaign finance reform at the age of 90, dozens of citizens of different political persuasions put their bodies on the line by walking the length of the state through snow and sleet to stop big money in politics. With more than 6,000 miles collectively under their belt, and thousands still to come, the New Hampshire Rebellion has officially begun.

Opinion polling confirms what New Hampshire’s walkers learned along their way: that 96 percent of Americans believe the influence of money in politics needs to be reduced. Although we have differing opinions on health care, taxes, and the like, Granite Staters universally agree that special interest spending in campaigns is an affront to New Hampshire’s longstanding tradition of representative, accountable government.

If the opinions of ordinary voters aren’t enough, consider the late Republican senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, who devoted his latter years to stopping big money as co-chairman of Americans for Campaign Reform in Concord.

In his final printed piece before his death in 2012, Sen. Rudman warned that big money was effectively undermining the integrity of representative government in America. “Members of Congress now report spending a third of their time or more raising money for their next campaign, most of it coming from out-of-state interests instead of their own constituents,” Rudman wrote. “Wealthy contributors, in turn, expect – and too often receive – a return on their investment in the form of earmarks and legislative favors.”

You have an opportunity to change this status quo, Sen. Brown. As we were reminded by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen this week, your 2012 campaign for Senate in Massachusetts featured a “People’s Pledge” between you and Elizabeth Warren to stem the flood of negative ads by outside Super PACs. By committing to donate 50 percent of the cost of “independent” ads aired on your behalf to the charity of your opponent’s choice, you and Warren effectively ended outside attacks and brought a measure of accountability back into the campaign.

Of course, a pledge between two candidates will not fix an entire system of private campaign funding that many New Hampshire voters agree is rotten at its core. Regardless of the amount of outside spending that does or does not enter this campaign, candidates on either side are quickly raising millions of dollars – much of it from out of state – to get their message out. Too often, as Sen. Rudman observed, the money has strings attached.

Reducing the influence of special interests once and for all will require a brand new system of citizen-funded elections based on small donations from actual constituents capped at $200, and matched with public funds. To her credit, Sen. Shaheen has long co-sponsored the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act in Congress, which would do just that. Former state Sen. Jim Rubens, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, has also been an avid supporter of similar reforms in New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, the People’s Pledge is a necessary start. Close to $2 million in outside attack ads have already been aired in this campaign, and millions more are sure to follow unless the leading candidates say no.

As the New Hampshire Rebellion reminds us, big money is not the New Hampshire way. Out of respect for the citizens of your new home state, and in the interest of democracy itself, I urge you, Sen. Brown, to sign the People’s Pledge with Sen. Shaheen today.

Daniel Weeks, the former president of Americans for Campaign Reform, works on education in low-income communities with City Year New Hampshire. He walked with the N.H. Rebellion in January.

As typical democrats we are more reactive than proactive when it comes to gathering information on our republican opponents.

Now that Mr Kenney has taken his seat at the Executive Councillor's table we must keep track of his votes as they are made so that when the time comes for the campaign season we will have the facts at hand and not have to scramble for them.

In addition to votes made we also must listen closely to what he says from now to election day.

We do know that he is prone to, uhh, embellishing the truth (he was a great friend of Ray Burton).

The same thoughts also apply to Scott Brown or for that matter any republican, freestater, tea bagger, or libertarian that may be running for office as well.

I will be happy to put any information is this blog concerning the above.

Please send it to me in a file to simplify matters.

Also, please sign up to "follow" this blog.  You will automatically be notified when a new post is made.

Thank you.

Grafton County Commissioner Linda Lauer's testimony to the NH Senate committee on HB 569 (Northern Pass) as given today March 19, 2014.

To the Members of the New Hampshire Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

I am writing in support of HB569 as amended by the House (Amendment 2013-2377h).  I was recently appointed to serve out Ray Burton’s remaining term as a Grafton County Commissioner.  Grafton County has an area of about 1750 square miles and covers almost one-fifth of the state. Over half of the White Mountain National Forest is in Grafton County, as is Franconia Notch State Park and Cardigan State Park.  The Appalachian Trail runs through at least 10 towns in the county.   About 90% of the landscape is timberland.  The service industries, primarily tourism, are the largest employers. 

I mention all of these facts because you need to know why preservation of our state’s natural beauty is so important to me.  The beauty of our state provides rest and relaxation to the tourists from all around the world, but it also provides food on the table for many of us who live in Grafton County.  The majority of my constituents do not want to see our county become a throughway for tall power lines between Canada and southern New England.   HB569 simply asks the Site Evaluation Committee to take the importance of our natural resources and tourism-based economy into account as it evaluates power transmission projects, and give preference to the burial of elective transmission lines so that our state’s economy will not be impacted.

HB569 does not ask for a lot.  It does not impact projects that are required for reliability.  It does not affect shorter towers- those less than 50 feet tall- whose height does not exceed that of the region’s trees.  It does not require burial of elective transmission lines- it allows for the use of higher transmission lines if the developer can show that burial is not a smart choice from the perspective of engineering feasibility or substantial cost differences. 

So what does HB569 accomplish?  It provides a layer of protection for the tourism industry and the state by making the burial of lines the preferred option where it is feasible.  It opens up the possibility of increased state revenue through the lease of state-owned rights-of-way for elective power lines.  It encourages the use of buried transmission lines so that we don’t have a repeat of the extended power outages that accompanied the 1998 ice storm in Montreal, or the December 2008 ice storm in New Hampshire, or the February 2014 ice storm in Georgia, or the storm that cut power to 1.5 million people in Pennsylvania in February, or…….you get the idea.   Ice storms happen.  They happen in New Hampshire.  Why not bury elective transmission lines where it is feasible?  It’s just common sense.

In summary, HB569 is needed not because it forces the burial of transmission lines- it doesn’t- but because it will result in line burial being a preferred option.  Burying elective transmission lines preserves our natural resources, safeguards Grafton County’s tourism-related economy and jobs, protects the transmission lines from ice and wind damage, offers the possibility of increased state revenue through the lease of state-owned rights of way, and gets power to southern New England.  For these reasons, I encourage you to recommend “Ought to Pass” to the full Senate on HB 569 as amended.

                                                                                Respectfully,

                                                                         Linda D. Lauer, Ph.D.

                                                                         County Commissioner, Grafton District 2

Thanks to Chuck Phillips and author Mr Ungar…

Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM PDT

Every Democrat who wants to win should memorize Rick Ungar's piece on the FACTS about Obamacare

byMinistryOfTruthFollow

Today I'd like to bring your attention to a piece by Rick Ungar at Forbes.com detailing the pesky facts about Obamacare that Republicans would like to deny.

   Let’s begin with the meme threatening that healthcare reform will lead to a serious decline in full-time employment as employers reduce workforce hours to below 30 per week in the effort to avoid their responsibility to provide health benefits to their employees.

    It turns out that there has, in fact, been no such rush to reduce work hours. Indeed, numbers released last week reveal that precisely the opposite is taking place.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of part-time workers in the United States has fallen by 300,000 since March of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. What’s more, in the past year alone—the time period in which the nation was approaching the start date for Obamacare—full-time employment grew by over 2 million while part-time employment declined by 230,000.

    And it gets even more interesting.

    So Obamacare is NOT relegating all of us to part-time jobs. Just the opposite. As noted by Mr. Ungar it turns out that the number one instance of worker's hours being cut is in the public sector where RW Governor's and state legislatures have continued to wage a one-sided war on public sector workers.

    I'm strongly encouraging you all to read the entire piece at the link here as Mr. Ungar has done a commendable job of going through a mess of statistics to show how Republican complaints about Obamacare are simply false.

   And it should be noted, before Obamacare went into effect Republicans could just make shit up and get away with it, but now that we have factual statistics that show how the economy and workers have been effected by Obamacare it is only going to get harder for the GOP to continue to make shit up about what Obamacare actually is and how it will effect you.

   A few more thoughts on this subject below the orange croissant of defiance.

 Mr. Ungar goes on to blow up a few more Conservative myths about Obamacare, including the tired trope of how soooo many people are being kicked off their old health care plans because of Obamacare. It turns out that the number of people who are losing their plans is almost exactly the same as the number of people who would drop a new health insurance plan to go on an employer provided plan in the long long ago pre-Obamacare.

   I don't want to quote too much of Rick Ungar's piece, you really should just read the whole thing for yourself.

   More to the point, Democrats have to start LOUDLY defending Obamacare. That means being able to debunk obvious GOP lies as well as being able to strongly support the outstanding benefits within the bill. Every Democrat who wants to win should memorize this article by Rick Ungar.

   I think Mr. Ungar wrote a perfect ending to his piece.

   Facts matter—even when they screw up an effective disinformation campaign.

And another from Chuck and Mr Ungar...

The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin

Rick Ungar, Contributor

Forbes Magazine, March 10, 2014

Comment Now

Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments

After years of negative speculation on the part of the opponents of Obamacare, hard data is finally coming in with respect to the anticipated negative side-effects of the law.

The results are guaranteed to both surprise and depress those who have built their narrative around the effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Let’s begin with the meme threatening that healthcare reform will lead to a serious decline in full-time employment as employers reduce workforce hours to below 30 per week in the effort to avoid their responsibility to provide health benefits to their employees.

It turns out that there has, in fact, been no such rush to reduce work hours. Indeed, numbers released last week reveal that precisely the opposite is taking place.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of part-time workers in the United States has fallen by 300,000 since March of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. What’s more, in the past year alone—the time period in which the nation was approaching the start date for Obamacare—full-time employment grew by over 2 million while part-time employment declined by 230,000.

And it gets even more interesting.

Despite the cries of anguish over the coming destruction of private sector work opportunities at the hands of Obamacare, it turns out that the only significant ‘cutter’ of work hours turns out to be in the public sector where cops, teachers, prison guards and the like are experiencing cuts in work time as cities, states and universities seek to avoid the obligations of the health reform law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the very same folks who strenuously oppose Obamacare who are constantly screaming for smaller government? Are these not the same people who have, for as many years as I can recall, been carping about swollen government payrolls?

But the false narrative that has been peddled to make us believe that the private sector can’t wait to lower our hours of employment turns out not to be the only false note being played by anti-Obamacare forces.

For months now, we have been pounded with the story of the millions of Americans who have lost their non-group, individual health insurance policy due to cancellations forced by Obamacare.

Yet, a new study just out by Lisa Clemans-Cope and Nathaniel Anderson of the Urban Institute tells a very different story.

How many times have readers, along with television and radio audiences, read or heard me point out that few ever expected to hang onto their individual insurance policy for longer than a year or two following date of purchase? Long before there was Obamacare, it was always clear that when someone purchased an individual health instance policy, it was pretty much a given that they would either be moving on to an employer provided group plan when they get a job or that their policy would respond to the ordinary, pre-Obamacare changes that occurred from year to year and result in the consumer having to purchasing a new plan after a short period of time.

Indeed, it was this very reality that made it clear to those who follow the health insurance industry that Obama’s “If you like your policy you can keep your policy” proclamation was a near impossibility for those participating in the individual marketplace. This simply wasn’t the way the individual market worked.

The Urban Institute study bears this out, noting that “the non-group market has historically been highly volatile, with just 17 percent retaining coverage for more than two years.”

While Obamacare foes have been quick to jump on this statistic when it comes to condemning the President for uttering his promise that you could keep your insurance if you are happy with your policy, the same people have somehow managed to miss the reality that a huge percentage of those who received cancellation notices last year were going to get that notice even if the Affordable Care Act had never existed.

But that is not all that critics have been missing as they’ve sought to exploit the supposed high number of cancellations they claim are due to Obamacare.

To find out just how many people have really been put into an insurance fix, the Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey, in December of 2013, asked people between the ages of 18 and 64 the following question:

“Did you receive a notice in the past few months from a health insurance company saying that your policy is cancelled or will no longer be offered at the end of 2013?”

Note that the number of people who saw their policy cancelled because it did not meet the Obamacare minimum requirements was 18.6 percent—dangerously close to the 17 percent of individual policyholders who were losing their individual market policies pre-Obamacare.

Also note that the 18.6 percent equates to roughly 2.6 million people whose plans were cancelled as a result of Obamacare—a number well below the estimates of 5 million or considerably more being tossed about by Obamacare opposition.

So, what happens to these folks who saw their health insurance policy cancelled?

According to the Urban Institute researchers :

“While our sample size of those with non-group health insurance who report that their plan was cancelled due to ACA compliance is small (N=123), we estimate that over half of this population is likely to be eligible for coverage assistance, mostly through Marketplace subsidies. Consistent with these findings, other work by Urban Institute researchers estimated that slightly more than half of adults with pre-reform, nongroup coverage would be eligible for Marketplace subsidies or Medicaid.”

So what does this data tell us?

As a result of at least half of those cancelled being able to either enroll in a Medicaid program or receive subsidies on the healthcare exchanges, many—if not most—will now find health care coverage at a price lower than previously paid while greatly improving the quality of coverage.

Still, roughly one million people will have to replace their cancelled policy with something that may cost them more. This is not a good thing but it is far, far less dramatic than what we’ve been hearing. It is also a part of the expected upheaval that has always—and will always—result from the passage of reforms designed to benefit the greatest number of people. Traditionally, those who are disadvantaged in this way find that things are sorted out in amendments to the initial legislation, amendments that can only result when Republicans in Congress stop playing politics and begin the serious work of making the law better for Americans.

There is another problem noted in the study—

Because of the amount of focus placed on scaring the you-know-what out of people when it comes to the alleged dire effects of Obamacare rather than educating them, people remain in the dark as to what is available on the exchanges or via the state Medicaid programs.

Per the Urban Institute study—

“Yet making the best enrollment choice may be difficult for consumers. HRMS findings show that many people are not aware of the new state Marketplaces, few know whether their state is expanding Medicaid, and many lack the confidence to enroll, make choices, and pay their premiums.”

Once again, politics trumps policy and the critical needs of those our elected officials are sworn to serve.

I highly encourage everyone—whether friend or foe of healthcare reform—to take a look at the study cited above and the BLS statistics. While most all would agree that there are some repairs that need to be made to the Affordable Care Act, workable fixes designed to benefit the public and improve American healthcare cannot happen so long as politicians, pundits and special interests are devoted to lying about what Obamacare means and what it does not mean to the American public.

Facts matter—even when they screw up an effective disinformation campaign.