|
Letters |
|
ISSUES |
Letters to the Editor for Senate District 5 Here's how to do it: Salutation should be: To the Editor. The letter must be signed (if faxed or mailed). Include your address and phone number so that they can verify that the letter is really written by you. Keep letters short and succinct. The limit for some papers is 300 words, and shorter letters are more likely to be read. In any case, avoid going over 500 words. Some papers limit the frequency of letters to once every 2 weeks per writer. If you are going to e-mail your letter, copy the text into the body of the e-mail. You can attach a copy too if want, but sometimes the paper can’t open attachments. All phone and fax numbers are area code 603. Good luck and thank you.
Dear Editor: With regard to Rep. White’s letter challenging Rep. Almy’s version of the electric restructuring decision, anyone with internet access may look up the entire text of the two debates in the House, and voting records, at http://www.state.nh.us/ (go to Legislature, House Calendars and Records; House Journal No.16 starting p. 1402, HJ No.18 starting p. 1525). A few relevant excerpts: Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, highly respected Chair of Science, Technology & Energy Committee: “I believe and I believe that the majority, the 17 to 2 majority, of the Science, Technology & Energy Committee believes, indeed, that this is likely to be the best that we’ll do, $472 million write-off, line in the sand for stranded costs…I’m left to talk about this one-page graph which you all have (Ruben’s). I will tell you that the author of that has taken the Public Utility Commission numbers, which low-ball the actual real market price of power, used that assumption and taken Dr. Silkman’s, our consultant’s, numbers, which are accurate real world market prices, and compared the two. It is not apples to apples, I’m sorry, it just isn’t.” (p. 1420) Jef MacGillivray, R-New Ipswich, member of the committee: (If we reject this) “to come out ahead with a rate case we’d need an extremely good result from litigation, inconsistent with our track record, and we’d have to get it fast enough that delays in securitization savings didn’t offset that almost entire gain…Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is too important for politics. We’re paying all of these costs now. We’re overwhelmingly likely to be required to keep paying them in the future. Senate Bill 472 gives us $474 million in PSNH write-offs, $101 million more than the original settlement, and sets us up for over $300 million of refinancing savings now…all of the alternatives look 100 million or more worse.’(p.1411-2) Final vote on the House floor, 212-125 for the draft deal on May 17; 267-72 on May 31 for the final compromise hammered out with PSNH by the House and Senate Committees combined. I’m sure Rep. White truly believes in his fears for this settlement, but he ignores the extremely poor odds of a timely, better result being achieved through the courts. The vast majority have come to the conclusion that this is the very best we can do to remove that octopus slung around our necks eleven years ago. Naida Kaen, State Rep. (D&R) Lee ( Member, Science, Technology & Energy Committee)
October 3, 2000 The Concord Monitor P. O. Box 1177 Concord, NH 03302-1177 To the Editor: Clifton Below's re-election to the New Hampshire Senate is essential if the state is to move ahead with establishing a more equitable tax base for funding educational expenses. We must reduce our reliance on property taxes, which are not proportionate to income. An income tax will go a long way to accomplishing this goal. It will reduce the tax burden on the poorest 20% of the population, who currently pay three times more of their income for taxes than the wealthiest taxpayers. Senator Below has supported the development of an income tax and was one of the authors of a bill to fund education, which passed the Senate but met defeat in the House. Senator Below has also supported the HMO Accountability Act, which enables you to appeal HMO-denied care to an independent panel of doctors. He has helped create a dedicated State fund for prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. He has been a leader in lowering electric rates, which are now coming on line and should ultimately result in a 16% reduction of our electric bills. And in many other areas, such as repeal of the death penalty, he has demonstrated a consistent commitment to progressive legislation and to the citizens of New Hampshire. We have been impressed by Senator Below's hard work, thoughtfulness, and integrity. His sincere dedication to the well-being of the residents of his district (District 5) is evident. Now more than ever, we need his experience and common sense to solve our problems. If you believe, as we do, that this is a crucial election for our children and our future, we urge you to re-elect Clifton Below to the New Hampshire Senate on November 7. Harry Beskind & Virginia Swain Hanover, NH 03755
Subject: Rubens presents Untrue
Statements
Regarding 1), a New Hampshire Income Tax
would be paid on Social Security, as Federal Income Tax is, ONLY by
those whose income from all taxable sources OTHER THAN Social Security
exceeds $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for married couples. The Social
Security Administration has Whether Jim Rubens doesn't himself know the preceding facts about Social Security or he deliberately wants voters to believe that they would pay State Income Tax on Social Security, he demonstrates that he is not the person who should be trusted as a State Senator. Clif Below is! George M. Howe HCR 64 Box 514 Wilmot, NH 03287 526-4559 October 5, 2000 To the Editor: Cliff Below has proven to be an outstanding senator. His integrity, intelligence, and industry are the qualities that voters look for in their state leaders. We believe we are qualified to speak on Cliff's stand on education. Dan was a member of Kearsarge Regional School Board. Natalie taught English in Massachusetts, Claremont, and the Kearsarge Regional School District. He has demonstrated in debates with Jim Rubens that he has a thorough and equitable plan for funding education, supported with facts. Rubens, on the other hand, gives us generalizations about funding; the gist of it seems to be that any money will come from the tight general fund. Below realizes that the key to quality education is excellent teachers. In the Kearsarge District we have lost good teachers because competing districts pay more. Districts that pay their teachers well attract quality teachers who do much to provide a stimulating environment for other teachers. When asked about discipline, he stated a teacher with a small class load are able to show more concern for his or her students, which will lead to better discipline. When teaching conditions are bad, teachers leave. New Hampshire can't afford to lose any more good teachers and needs to support an equitable plan to fully fund education. New Hampshire has a good economy and is attracting more high paying jobs. Workers want the best education possible for their children. If we continue to be in gridlock, we will lose them, which will hurt our economy. If we elect Rubens and Humphrey, we are guaranteed gridlock. In the primary Shaheen got the message that many of us are disappointed with her lack of leadership on this issue. Cliff Below will do all he can to move the quesion of education funding in a direction that gives New Hampshire's children the type of education they deserve. Many of us are bitter and disllusioned by the quality of our political leaders. Cliff's integrity, industry, and intelligence make him the type of leader New Hampshire needs and deserves. He is so hard working in office that he deserves our praise.
Natalie Davis and Dan Allen, New London
Concord Monitor, Sunday, August 27, 2000 Letter to the editor I have not been one who writes letters to the editor, but I need to share an observation. On Aug. 19, I had occasion to attend the New London Rotary barbecue, a fund-raiser to provide scholarships to our area's youth. It is expected and accepted that any gathering of people at this time of the year will attract candidates for political office. Several candidates for the House and Senate came to pitch themselves for office. Most did so with respect and regard for the occasion: low-key introductions, talks with those who were open to being talked with, non-intrusive handouts. It is disappointing to say that one candidate could not maintain the respect for why people were attending this important function. That candidate, Jim Rubens, projected an arrogance by going beyond the acceptable by bringing out his campaign sign during the event. It is sad to see someone turn the atmosphere of a town gathering to one
of a political event.
RACHEL PARRISH
New London
|