Let alone with its employers' money. Seems self-evident, doesn't it? One might even be forgiven for presuming that the 1st Amendment and Right-to-Know prohibited it. Even if finalized by "mutual agreement" -- because the taxpayers don't have a seat at the settlement table.
Government can't hide its (effectively admitted) transgressions. Your servants shouldn't ever be able to unjustly attempt to destroy your life, and then, as a condition of ceasing and desisting its reckless lawlessness, compel your silence on the matter. It must not have the option of escaping public accountability for its actions. Ever.
Ever.
You are the employer. You are the taxpayer. However many "bags of money" there are, you're on the hook for the damage that ostensibly warranted their distribution. You were obliged to fill them. You have a duty to understand fully what your servants are perpetrating in your name and on your dime. You are the only sure remedy to more bags getting distributed in the future. You have every right to know the particulars empirically conceded with the settlement by your servants. Government doesn't get to buy silence regarding its abuses with (your) money. A guaranteed silence that only encourages more abuse -- of you as taxpayer, and of you as potential target. "More difficult settlements" is a good thing if it encourages government not to put itself in that position in the first place.
And I'm fairly confident actionable slander and libel statutes will survive, so...
HB154, "prohibiting non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements involving a governmental unit", before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 5/14/2019, is such a stipulation. And evidently the NHDoJ agrees. Sunlight is the best disinfectant...
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
A Right to Your Own Body -- And a Right to Defend that Right
Neither guns nor weed are within any delegated 'prohibition' purview of any government legitimately authorized by this US Constitution. It's that simple.
With hoplophobic hysteria (among other problems already, to be sure) having gleefully descended on the freshly Democratically-controlled NH legislature this term, the several state RKBA groups have been working overtime endeavoring to get their constituents out to relevant committee hearings and contacting their ostensible "representatives". Thus, I've expected that the public hearings for these bills would be well-enough attended and sufficiently reported that my own camera wasn't needed -- indeed, unnecessarily taking an SRO spot from someone else, who just might provide compelling testimony, too.
Plus there are the obscene parking problems in the State House's vicinity lately, even without high turnout, what with construction and the booted meters and garage spaces reserved for the Privileged Class as far as the eye can see. It shouldn't be too easy to instruct your servant government, after all...
But this day, 5/14/2019, is the typically far less well-attended Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session to hash out and arrive at said committee's official mob-rule/damn-our-constricting-lawfully-delegated-authority recommendations to the full body on, among others, 4 of those gun bills (so there's still time to contact your Senator), all beginning at about the 9:20 mark:
HB109, "requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales", ("Ought To Pass" 3-2),
HB514, "imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm", (OTP/As Amended 3-2),
HB564, "(New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property", (OTP/A 3-2),
HB696, "establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults" (here are overviews on this one), (OTP/A 3-2).
So much head-smackingly self-assured cluelessness that cries out for addressing here, certainly -- not that it hasn't been addressed before, ad nauseam, to no effect. But I'll confine myself to arguably the most egregious: the empirically false, addle-pated conviction, at base, that criminals obey laws. And further that if the children can be assured that if the rights of (only, since they're the only ones who will comply, duh) law-abiding citizens may be violated (without Constitutional authority, needless to say), then the children will rest easy that they are somehow now made safer. That the children would buy that speaks mostly to their government-school education, seems to me. The "gun-free" school bill stops everyone but the individual it (says it) wants to stop -- and, indeed, assures him publicly of that fact. What could possibly go wrong...?
And if you haven't stopped the criminal -- and again, unauthorized statutes stopping the law-abiding by definition won't stop him -- then "feeling safe" is, at best, entirely illusory, is nothing at all but a potentially more deadly "false sense of security", because you've purged the killing zone of any effective defense against those whom your statute won't stop. The school shooter is still coming. Seriously, have you not been following the news? All you've accomplished is to reassure him that his victims will be unable to defend themselves. The belief that an individual who would shoot up a school will still heed your prohibition on peaceful carry is flat-out delusional.
But first, they 'Exec' HB399, "relative to annulment of arrests or convictions for possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" at about :40 (OTP/A 3-2) and HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" at about 6:45, ("re-refer to committee" 5-0 -- merely returning toward Constitutional constraints should get more study...!), legislative hearings for which may be viewed here and here (House) and here (Senate).
Consider. Both of these topics, guns and weed -- each of them (one explicitly, even) undelegated "prohibitions", functionally -- concern what, in a free society (hell, even in this one), should be jealously-guarded fundamentally-protected civil liberties: unilateral control of your own body, and the ability to effectively defend that right from those who, whether with or without a fancy hat, would presume to violate it.
How can the Constitution-averse Duopoly -- that assures you that it is government, and will be respected, even if ultimately it has to kill you to "earn" it (because make NO mistake, every statute is backed by a gun) -- so easily and recalcitrantly trade sides on them?
Does that seem right to you...?
From MPP New England Political Director Matt Simon, 6/14/2019, because it needs to go somewhere (and tell Sununu about the rest of your rights, too, while you've got him on the horn):
With hoplophobic hysteria (among other problems already, to be sure) having gleefully descended on the freshly Democratically-controlled NH legislature this term, the several state RKBA groups have been working overtime endeavoring to get their constituents out to relevant committee hearings and contacting their ostensible "representatives". Thus, I've expected that the public hearings for these bills would be well-enough attended and sufficiently reported that my own camera wasn't needed -- indeed, unnecessarily taking an SRO spot from someone else, who just might provide compelling testimony, too.
Plus there are the obscene parking problems in the State House's vicinity lately, even without high turnout, what with construction and the booted meters and garage spaces reserved for the Privileged Class as far as the eye can see. It shouldn't be too easy to instruct your servant government, after all...
But this day, 5/14/2019, is the typically far less well-attended Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session to hash out and arrive at said committee's official mob-rule/damn-our-constricting-lawfully-delegated-authority recommendations to the full body on, among others, 4 of those gun bills (so there's still time to contact your Senator), all beginning at about the 9:20 mark:
HB109, "requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales", ("Ought To Pass" 3-2),
HB514, "imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm", (OTP/As Amended 3-2),
HB564, "(New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property", (OTP/A 3-2),
HB696, "establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults" (here are overviews on this one), (OTP/A 3-2).
So much head-smackingly self-assured cluelessness that cries out for addressing here, certainly -- not that it hasn't been addressed before, ad nauseam, to no effect. But I'll confine myself to arguably the most egregious: the empirically false, addle-pated conviction, at base, that criminals obey laws. And further that if the children can be assured that if the rights of (only, since they're the only ones who will comply, duh) law-abiding citizens may be violated (without Constitutional authority, needless to say), then the children will rest easy that they are somehow now made safer. That the children would buy that speaks mostly to their government-school education, seems to me. The "gun-free" school bill stops everyone but the individual it (says it) wants to stop -- and, indeed, assures him publicly of that fact. What could possibly go wrong...?
And if you haven't stopped the criminal -- and again, unauthorized statutes stopping the law-abiding by definition won't stop him -- then "feeling safe" is, at best, entirely illusory, is nothing at all but a potentially more deadly "false sense of security", because you've purged the killing zone of any effective defense against those whom your statute won't stop. The school shooter is still coming. Seriously, have you not been following the news? All you've accomplished is to reassure him that his victims will be unable to defend themselves. The belief that an individual who would shoot up a school will still heed your prohibition on peaceful carry is flat-out delusional.
But first, they 'Exec' HB399, "relative to annulment of arrests or convictions for possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" at about :40 (OTP/A 3-2) and HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" at about 6:45, ("re-refer to committee" 5-0 -- merely returning toward Constitutional constraints should get more study...!), legislative hearings for which may be viewed here and here (House) and here (Senate).
Consider. Both of these topics, guns and weed -- each of them (one explicitly, even) undelegated "prohibitions", functionally -- concern what, in a free society (hell, even in this one), should be jealously-guarded fundamentally-protected civil liberties: unilateral control of your own body, and the ability to effectively defend that right from those who, whether with or without a fancy hat, would presume to violate it.
How can the Constitution-averse Duopoly -- that assures you that it is government, and will be respected, even if ultimately it has to kill you to "earn" it (because make NO mistake, every statute is backed by a gun) -- so easily and recalcitrantly trade sides on them?
Does that seem right to you...?
From MPP New England Political Director Matt Simon, 6/14/2019, because it needs to go somewhere (and tell Sununu about the rest of your rights, too, while you've got him on the horn):
MediaNew Hampshire friends, as you may know, I have been trying to convince the state to allow patients to grow their own cannabis for more than a decade. In the fall of 2008, with support from MPP, I began meeting with patients all over the state and encouraging them to share their experiences to help educate policymakers. Since then, countless patients have testified at public hearings to explain why they need to be able to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to opioids and other potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.The House of Representatives has listened, voting to pass *eight* medical cannabis home cultivation bills (in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.) Sadly, the only time the Senate agreed with the House was in 2012, and the bill was vetoed by then-Governor John Lynch (D).It's good that we finally have a functional medical cannabis program and a few tightly regulated dispensaries, but many patients continue to suffer because they are unable to afford a regular supply of cannabis from the dispensaries. Since medical cannabis isn't covered by insurance, many patients simply can't afford it and are left with no choice but to continue taking opioids. Maintaining felony penalties against patients who cultivate cannabis for their own use is an insane, authoritarian policy, and it has no place in a state that has the temerity to call itself the "Live Free or Die" state.I got into this intending to help *all* patients who could benefit from cannabis, and that is why I refuse to give up this fight.This year, the Senate has once again listened to the needs of patients, and it has agreed with the House to allow limited home cultivation. HB 364 is on its way to the desk of Gov. Chris Sununu, who has not yet indicated whether he intends to sign it or veto it.This morning, HB 364 even got an endorsement from Granite Grok, which bills itself as "the conservative voice of New England" and strongly opposes legalization for adults' use. And yet, because it is opposed by the police chiefs' association, the bill's fate remains uncertain.On behalf of all the patients who have been asking for more than a decade, including many who have since passed away or moved to other states in disgust (note: home grow is now legal, not only for patients, but for all adults in all three neighboring states), I ask that you please take a moment to call Gov. Sununu's office (603-271-2121) and politely urge him to sign this critically important bill.
- 'Gun Control' Failed Again in Denver- mass murderers don't obey the law - 5/13/2019
- Senate committee votes to delay marijuana legalization bill to 2020 - 5/14/2019
(It's never too soon to start honoring your oath, Senator Carson...) - Gun Restrictions Pass the NH Senate Along Party Lines - InDepthNH.orgInDepthNH.org - 5/23/2019
- Senate Removes Barriers to Opportunity with Expungement Legislation - Americans for Prosperity - 5/30/2019
- Legalizing Pot Bill Dead This Session, But Will Be Back - InDepthNH.org - 5/30/2019
- Marijuana Legalization Bill Put On Hold in N.H. Senate | New Hampshire Public Radio - 5/31/2019
- Governor Sununu Should Sign HB364: Allowing Cannabis Cultivation for Therapeutic Use - Granite Grok - 6/14/2019
- Our Turn: Constitutional protections go up in smoke -- 7/8/2019 (perhaps titled misleadingly, particularly in this context, concerning HB696)
- Gov. Sununu Keeps his Word - Vetoes Three Gun-Grabber Bills. Democrats Will Lose Their Minds! - Granite Grok - 8/9/2019
- Sununu vetoes 3 gun bills, citing NH’s ‘culture of responsible gun ownership, individual freedom' - 8/9/2019
- Praise, Criticism As Sununu Vetoes 3 Gun Bills, Minimum Wage, Redistricting - InDepthNH.orgInDepthNH.org - 8/9/2019
- Sununu vetoes gun control bills, says current laws are 'well-crafted and fit our culture' | State | unionleader.com - 8/9/2019
- Sununu vetoes six priority bills for Democrats, including three on gun control - 8/9/2019
- Why the Gun Law Vetoes Are a Win for Gov. Sununu – InsideSources - 8/9/2019
- Strange bedfellows: Gun rights activists, victim advocates thwart bill | Human Interest | unionleader.com - 8/10/2019
- Protesters Blast Sununu For Vetoing Gun Control Bills - InDepthNH.orgInDepthNH.org - 8/12/2019
- Demonstrators decry Sununu veto of gun bills, supporters say it will boost his popularity - 8/12/2019
Thursday, May 9, 2019
If Wishes Were Horses, We'd All Be Eatin' Steak!
And at unsustainably low mandated prices, too! And free ponies for everyone! Whee...! Ahh, fiat utopia. Sadly, however, TANSTAAFL intervenes. Everybody likes money -- you like money, too...?! Nobody appears to have any suggestions on where the funding for the bureaucrat-added costs of doing business is supposed to come from, though. Details, details... They do seem to understand well enough that their personal balance sheets need to add up. They're just not willing to concede the same realities for others. All your contract are belong to us; Love, the Central Planners...
Herewith, HB186, "establishing a state minimum wage and providing for adjustments to the minimum wage", before the NH Senate Commerce Committee, 5/9/2019. The sponsor easily acknowledges that the competitive market for goods and services in NH has already addressed this bill's intent: very few workers would benefit from its economic interventions. Because competition for good labor (it's why that Chatham ice cream shop calculates -- along with all of the other of their business considerations of which you know nothing, Senator Cavanaugh -- it's in its financial interest to pay such good wages).
So why is this necessary? Like the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, it seems, our rulers observe, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."
But if it is necessary -- and there are no nettlesomely negative economic consequences to meddling in the market's pricing signals, because money evidently does grow on trees -- to overrule markets (which have more data than you do) and commandeer other people's contracts because "We Know Better", then why stop at $12? Why not, say, $50? Or $100? Surely that would be even better!
No, because even supporters, one can only surmise, can somehow grasp there would be problems -- of their own creation, and therefore their responsibility -- even if they can't articulate them. And the arguments against $50 are identical to the arguments against $12. Or any, for that matter.
Most simply, they're not your contracts, and you have a "knowledge problem". Show some humility. "Wishing" a business can afford to pay what you want it to pay -- and that the job being done economically supports paying that wage -- doesn't make it so. If you believe it can be paid sustainably, then start a competing business and you will instantly have your pick of the best labor. And like Bernie Sanders, you'll profit like a true capitalist.
Here's an alternative to force-monopoly coercion based in economic ignorance: Private voluntary contracts, and free-market pressure via natural pricing signals and non-government-undermined competition. Yes, even for labor. All will be well...
Media
Or...
Or...
Now the hearing...
Herewith, HB186, "establishing a state minimum wage and providing for adjustments to the minimum wage", before the NH Senate Commerce Committee, 5/9/2019. The sponsor easily acknowledges that the competitive market for goods and services in NH has already addressed this bill's intent: very few workers would benefit from its economic interventions. Because competition for good labor (it's why that Chatham ice cream shop calculates -- along with all of the other of their business considerations of which you know nothing, Senator Cavanaugh -- it's in its financial interest to pay such good wages).
So why is this necessary? Like the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, it seems, our rulers observe, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."
But if it is necessary -- and there are no nettlesomely negative economic consequences to meddling in the market's pricing signals, because money evidently does grow on trees -- to overrule markets (which have more data than you do) and commandeer other people's contracts because "We Know Better", then why stop at $12? Why not, say, $50? Or $100? Surely that would be even better!
No, because even supporters, one can only surmise, can somehow grasp there would be problems -- of their own creation, and therefore their responsibility -- even if they can't articulate them. And the arguments against $50 are identical to the arguments against $12. Or any, for that matter.
Most simply, they're not your contracts, and you have a "knowledge problem". Show some humility. "Wishing" a business can afford to pay what you want it to pay -- and that the job being done economically supports paying that wage -- doesn't make it so. If you believe it can be paid sustainably, then start a competing business and you will instantly have your pick of the best labor. And like Bernie Sanders, you'll profit like a true capitalist.
Here's an alternative to force-monopoly coercion based in economic ignorance: Private voluntary contracts, and free-market pressure via natural pricing signals and non-government-undermined competition. Yes, even for labor. All will be well...
Media
- The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00 - The New York Times - 1/14/1987
- Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Progressives can't get past the Knowledge Problem | Washington Examiner - 4/4/2010
- I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian - CNN.com - 8/17/2011
- The Minimum Wage: A Little Light Empiricism on a Heavy Subject – Reason.com - 2/21/2013
- The Truth About the Minimum Wage - Foundation for Economic Education - 11/19/2012
- How the Minimum Wage Destroyed 1.4 Million Jobs | RealClearMarkets - 12/10/2014
- The Eugenics Plot of the Minimum Wage - Foundation for Economic Education - 2/10/2015
- Jerry Brown: “Economically, the Minimum Wage May Not Make Sense” - Foundation for Economic Education - 4/6/2016
- San Diego’s Experiment With Higher Minimum Wage: 4,000 Fewer Restaurant Jobs – Reason.com - 4/11/2017
- A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals - The Washington Post - 6/26/2017 (or if you're not subscribed)
- How the Knowledge Problem Impacts Your Daily Decisions - 9/7/2017
- Venezuela’s Maduro Orders 3,500 Percent Increase in Minimum Wage … 40 Percent of Businesses Close – JONATHAN TURLEY - 9/18/2018
- Pew Map Shows One Reason a National $15 Minimum Wage Won’t Work – Reason.com - 10/12/2018
- The Nash Equilibrium Minimum Wage Is Zero - Foundation for Economic Education - 1/3/2019
- Be Careful What You Wish for on the Minimum Wage – Reason.com - 1/24/2019
- Democratic Bill Aims to Hurt NH Workers | The Liberty Block - 5/7/2019
- Senate takes up House bill to raise minimum wage | State | unionleader.com - 5/9/2019
Or...
Or...
Now the hearing...
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Go East, Young Man
HB567, "relative to using the Atlantic Time Zone in NH", confronts the NH Senate's Executive Departments and Administration Committee, 5/8/2019. Hey, it's where we're laboriously headed already anyway, right? Besides, adjust your activities to the solar cycle, instead of thinking you're performing miracles by moving clock hands around. Ya don't actually create another hour of daylight, y'know...
The Massachusetts 'Time Zone Commission Report' to which prime sponsor Rep. Yokela referred can be found here (or as pdf). But let's start here. Nobody likes it. So why are we still doing it...?
And now the hearing...
Press
The Massachusetts 'Time Zone Commission Report' to which prime sponsor Rep. Yokela referred can be found here (or as pdf). But let's start here. Nobody likes it. So why are we still doing it...?
And now the hearing...
Press
- Study Supports Massachusetts Time Zone Change - 9/28/2017
- Commission: Massachusetts Should Change Time Zones, But Not On Its Own – CBS Boston - 1/1/2017
- Could New England actually change time zones? | Boston.com | Boston.com - 11/5/2017
- Should Connecticut stop changing its clocks for daylight saving time? This lawmaker says yes. - Hartford Courant - 1/15/2019
- Should Massachusetts switch to keeping daylight saving time the whole year? - The Boston Globe - 3/7/2019
- Daylight Saving Is Here. Suppose We Made This Time Change Our Last? - The New York Times - 3/9/2019
- How permanent daylight-saving time would make all our lives better - MarketWatch - 3/9/2019
- An extra hour of light and Boston exhales, even amid debate - The Boston Globe - 3/11/2019
- Maine lawmakers consider move to Atlantic Time Zone, again - 3/12/2019
- EU Parliament votes to end daylight savings | News | DW - 3/26/2019
- Should N.J. ditch changing clocks for Daylight Saving Time? It could happen. - nj.com - 4/20/2019
- (WA) Legislature OKs step toward year-round daylight saving - 4/23/2019
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
A Volunteer Recording a Government Committee
As said committee discusses (oh, so close...!) creating a committee to study requiring committees to record themselves, for the benefit of voters who generally need to be about earning their daily bread and acquiring the income necessary to satisfy said legislature's profligate spending habits (with, obviously, other people's money -- have I mentioned lately that taxation is theft?). As if those committees should actually be transparent and accountable, or something. Oversight. The Chair, herself, marvels at what could possibly be the motivation. But then, that's the imperious Senator Carson, so hardly surprising. And what the hell, if the volunteer can be obliged, catch-as-catch-can (so their machinations are still largely in the dark for the vast majority of voters), to continue to do their job for them, well...
HB457, "establishing a committee to study the making, preservation, and Internet availability of audio and video recordings of proceedings of committees of the house of representatives" -- which was changed in the House from the original bill that required them to just start providing you, dear taxpayer, with a video record of all their shenanigans (let's not be too hasty, after all) -- before the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee, 4/24/2019.
This hearing having been delayed about 10 minutes by the overlong previous hearing, the prime sponsor (and all 10 of the co-sponsors, to be sure) evidently had more pressing matters to which to attend. Thus your humble chronicler reluctantly finds himself in the uncomfortable position of offering the sole testimony standing between a summary "ITL" committee Executive Session recommendation and merely a discussion regarding government transparency and convenient citizen oversight -- thus, as I write this only a couple hours later, I have every confidence that pro forma Exec Session has already transpired...
Not including the 5-minute recess, under 3 minutes, total. Done and done...
[Update: As of 4/25, the bill's docket reports that the Committee Exec Session voted 5-0 'Ought to Pass', with a place on the Senate 'Consent Calendar' for next Thursday. Still only a miserable study committee, but... huh...]
HB457, "establishing a committee to study the making, preservation, and Internet availability of audio and video recordings of proceedings of committees of the house of representatives" -- which was changed in the House from the original bill that required them to just start providing you, dear taxpayer, with a video record of all their shenanigans (let's not be too hasty, after all) -- before the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee, 4/24/2019.
This hearing having been delayed about 10 minutes by the overlong previous hearing, the prime sponsor (and all 10 of the co-sponsors, to be sure) evidently had more pressing matters to which to attend. Thus your humble chronicler reluctantly finds himself in the uncomfortable position of offering the sole testimony standing between a summary "ITL" committee Executive Session recommendation and merely a discussion regarding government transparency and convenient citizen oversight -- thus, as I write this only a couple hours later, I have every confidence that pro forma Exec Session has already transpired...
Not including the 5-minute recess, under 3 minutes, total. Done and done...
[Update: As of 4/25, the bill's docket reports that the Committee Exec Session voted 5-0 'Ought to Pass', with a place on the Senate 'Consent Calendar' for next Thursday. Still only a miserable study committee, but... huh...]
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Prohibition Is Illegal
It's true. Even if it were effective at its professed goals (and also not obscenely expensive in blood, treasure and liberty), and in addition to being immoral, prohibition -- of anything, since the people ratified the 21st Amendment -- is nowhere authorized to this government. Why does that fundamental fact continue to elude self-described "conservatives" in this ostensible Constitutional Republic of expressly limited government?
But the relentless prohibitionists and Constitution-deniers sure did show up in force this day, 4/23/2019, in opposition to HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor," before the NH Senate Judiciary Committee. They recruited much out-of-state talent in their quest to continue violating your rights over your own body. Non-masochists might just want to skip to MPP's New England Political Director Matt Simon at about 1:53:00. We did have confirmed for us that NJ still really sucks. Gosh, you make it all sound so enticing, Bishop, but you should go home and work to alleviate your domestic afflictions, rather than attempting to convert NH.
The "good" news is that they just couldn't fit all the authoritarians into one session, so the hearing's been recessed until May 7th at 9am. So there's still an opportunity for you to explain it to them...
Press/Media
Update: I couldn't (bring myself to) make it to Round 2. Probably just as well for my mental health. If you didn't either, here's what you missed...
But the relentless prohibitionists and Constitution-deniers sure did show up in force this day, 4/23/2019, in opposition to HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor," before the NH Senate Judiciary Committee. They recruited much out-of-state talent in their quest to continue violating your rights over your own body. Non-masochists might just want to skip to MPP's New England Political Director Matt Simon at about 1:53:00. We did have confirmed for us that NJ still really sucks. Gosh, you make it all sound so enticing, Bishop, but you should go home and work to alleviate your domestic afflictions, rather than attempting to convert NH.
The "good" news is that they just couldn't fit all the authoritarians into one session, so the hearing's been recessed until May 7th at 9am. So there's still an opportunity for you to explain it to them...
Press/Media
- Opponents to N.H. marijuana legalization show up in force at hearing
- Pot prohibition supporters dominate Senate hearing on recreational cannabis for adults | State | unionleader.com
- NH Senate considers bill to legalize marijuana
- Reefer Madness (1936) - YouTube
- Channeling Anslinger: Cracks in a Crackpot Book About Pot | Project CBD
- 21st Century Reefer Madness | Psychiatric Times
- Sources Cited By Legalization Opponents Lack Credibility
Update: I couldn't (bring myself to) make it to Round 2. Probably just as well for my mental health. If you didn't either, here's what you missed...
- Former U.S. drug czar urges lawmakers to reject legal marijuana | State | unionleader.com
- Former drug czar speaks out against marijuana legalization in NH
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Cannabis Prohibition: A Debate on Costs and Benefits
Should New Hampshire legalize, regulate, and tax cannabis? What are the potential costs and benefits?
Americans for Prosperity invites you to join former House Speaker Bill O’Brien and a diverse group of panelists for a civil discussion and debate.
Moderator: Bill O'Brien, former Speaker of the N.H. House
Legalization Supporters:
Ross Connolly, Americans for Prosperity
Former Rep. Joe Hannon, member of the study commission on marijuana legalization
Matt Simon, Marijuana Policy Project
Legalization Opponents:
Neil Hubacker, Cornerstone
Rep. Stephen Pearson (R-Derry)
Rep. Pat Abrami (R-Stratham), chairman of the study commission on marijuana legalization
Date And Time
Mon, March 18, 2019
6:30 PM – 8:00 PM EDT
Location
Nackey S Loeb School of Communications (an institution, it should be noted, with perhaps some questionable judgment)
749 East Industrial Park Drive
Manchester, NH 03109
Press
Legalizing pot debate comes up
As the policy fight heats up at the State House, Americans for Prosperity is hosting a debate next Monday on marijuana legalization in New Hampshire.
Former NH House SpeakerBill O’Brien , who is exploring his own GOP Senate run against Shaheen, will moderate this event from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications in Manchester.
The panel of supporters will be ex-state representative Joe Hannon, who served on the marijuana study commission; Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project; and Ross Connolly with AFP.
The opponents will be Neil Hubacker with Cornerstone NH, Rep. Stephen Pearson, R-Derry and Rep. Pat Abami, R-Stratham, and chairman of the study commission.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
How much will it cost to implement a tax?
That's today's question, essentially: is the restoration of some of your liberty economically advantageous to the State? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive -- or to over-regulate. Synonymous, really. Thirty-three pages of over-regulation, in fact. To "give" you back something that resembles your intended natural autonomy. For a fee, naturally. Duh. Ya don't get nothin' from the mafia without conditions, yo. It always expects its "taste", after all.
But micromanaging the lives and bodies and contracts of peaceful people is not the legitimate function of a servant government in a free society. Not even in this one, in point of fact, as it was designed. Finally stopping it from doing what it's not authorized to do in the first place shouldn't "cost" anything. Should it...?
It's curious that in the initial "legalization" debate, we're always assured that use rates will skyrocket -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization. But then when we eventually get to the "implementation" debate, we're told by the green-visored number-crunchers, as Rep Edwards points out, that there won't be increased use rates (and thus tax revenue) -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization! No matter where you go, there you are, I suppose...
So HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor", before the NH House "How Ever Will We Pay For Leaving People Alone?!?" Ways and Means Committee, 3/14/2019. Round 1, before the House Criminal Justice Committee, can be found here (along with links to a good deal of the miserable legislative history of endeavoring to finally end horrifically expensive -- and unauthorized, and egregiously failed -- cannabis prohibition in NH.
But I can't not lead off with an outtake from John Bryfonski, Bedford chief and the current representative from the NH Chiefs of Police Association (which is disturbingly reminiscent of a similar moment of revisionist nostalgia from Peter "21A Ruined This Country" Morency, testifying for the same organization in 2008 at 2 and a half minutes of part one, and recounted in more contextual detail here -- and it would appear the current Berlin chief's favored drug war hasn't been particularly successful, even personally, for old Pete).
Enjoy. Or be very sad. You have a choice, y'know...
Here's one answer, 7 months later, to the title question:
Bernie Sanders Manages To Make Marijuana Legalization Cost $50 Billion – Reason.com
But micromanaging the lives and bodies and contracts of peaceful people is not the legitimate function of a servant government in a free society. Not even in this one, in point of fact, as it was designed. Finally stopping it from doing what it's not authorized to do in the first place shouldn't "cost" anything. Should it...?
It's curious that in the initial "legalization" debate, we're always assured that use rates will skyrocket -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization. But then when we eventually get to the "implementation" debate, we're told by the green-visored number-crunchers, as Rep Edwards points out, that there won't be increased use rates (and thus tax revenue) -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization! No matter where you go, there you are, I suppose...
So HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor", before the NH House "How Ever Will We Pay For Leaving People Alone?!?" Ways and Means Committee, 3/14/2019. Round 1, before the House Criminal Justice Committee, can be found here (along with links to a good deal of the miserable legislative history of endeavoring to finally end horrifically expensive -- and unauthorized, and egregiously failed -- cannabis prohibition in NH.
But I can't not lead off with an outtake from John Bryfonski, Bedford chief and the current representative from the NH Chiefs of Police Association (which is disturbingly reminiscent of a similar moment of revisionist nostalgia from Peter "21A Ruined This Country" Morency, testifying for the same organization in 2008 at 2 and a half minutes of part one, and recounted in more contextual detail here -- and it would appear the current Berlin chief's favored drug war hasn't been particularly successful, even personally, for old Pete).
Enjoy. Or be very sad. You have a choice, y'know...
Here's one answer, 7 months later, to the title question:
Bernie Sanders Manages To Make Marijuana Legalization Cost $50 Billion – Reason.com
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
"It has to be mandatory to work."
Unlike when the relatively impartial Richard Lavers, Deputy Commissioner of the NH Department of Employment Security (the state bureaucracy that will be charged with implementing this payroll tax), warned essentially the same thing a year ago, regarding 2018's HB628, that title quote is from a devout supporter of the concept, in response to a Committee member's inquiry. Could it be expressed more honestly? 'My neighbors must be compelled, under force of "law", so that I can get what I want from them!' The shit ya hear at these things... What if I decide that you have to be forced to do something for me, girlie-girl (yes, I just watched The Music Man again the other night)? You can find it at about the 54-minute mark in the hearing video below. And here I was thinking I didn't have any more to say on the matter...
Government: Ideas So Good They Have To Be Forced.
Force, however -- initiated force, coercion -- is immoral. What this bill proposes -- the further surrender to the State of individuals' private voluntary contracts, control over (and responsibility for, obviously) their respective economic lives, without their consent -- is immoral. And (necessarily) immoral force-monopoly (force is the only tool it has, after all) government isn't the solution. Stop looking to it to impose on your neighbors for you. Here's a more freedom-friendly, a more Constitutionally compliant, contracts-respecting option.
Government: GTFOOTW. Stop presuming to know better. You don't. It's true. Stop thinking that your Constitutionally-unauthorized-for-a-reason micromanagement adds anything, more than it does unintended consequences and institutionalized legal theft. And thus necessitating more such "solutions", from a government that doesn't -- that can't -- know better than individuals making choices in their own self-interest. Consider that we're here now precisely because of your past meddling in (e.g.) insurance and labor markets, above your delegated pay grade.
And some of us do not consent. Supposedly, you need that consent in this Constitutional Republic.
The insurance industry exists. Savvy entrepreneurs, who, based entirely on enlightened self-interest, desire to offer employment conditions conducive to retaining the best workers, exist. Employees, meanwhile, make choices in their own perceived self-interest (which, just by the way, they have an entirely-equal-to-the-employer right to do), regarding acceptable employment terms -- and they aren't necessarily the same choices as those of their neighbors (nor do they have to be -- not unless government imperiously mandates "one size harms all", that is).
Between them all, they know better than you what is best for them. The competitive market -- in this case for labor -- will decide what it wants, via voluntary private contracts. And the result, unlike from monopoly government, won't be "one size harms all". And even if you were qualified, you have no authority to overrule them. Any of them. Not in a free society. Hell, not even in this one.
Why do none of these people lobbying government for more "free" stuff because of their bad choices (and government's eagerness to provide it, at the expense of their neighors' wallets and liberty, to be sure) ever turn to the audience and say, "Learn from my mistakes! Take responsibility for your lives and the shit that can happen in them! Stop asking for handouts and subsidies because you never thought it could happen to you, and just go buy insurance!"
But wait a minute. What the hell's going on here, anyway?! Wasn't the NH Senate Finance Committee hearing on this here SB1, "relative to family and medical leave", a mere 4 weeks ago, on 1/29/2019? And isn't "crossover day" -- when each body receives bills that have survived the initial harried gauntlet in the originating chamber -- still, like, a month away?! Has the House really run out of things to do?! House Minority Leader Dick Hinch, any thoughts...?
Herewith, then, SB1 before the NH House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee, 2/26/2019 (remember, the Senate hearing -- and more commentary, natch -- is here). The rush to jump the "crossover" gun would suggest to me that the Dems are endeavoring to force Governor Sununu's hand before the voluntary option (yet still not government's delegated job) he's promised in partnership with VT even sees the light of legislative day. Why might that be...?
The sadly-limited offered opposition can be found interspersed between the responsibility-free anecdotes at about 1:05, 1:07, 1:33, 1:46 and 1:56.
Media
Government: Ideas So Good They Have To Be Forced.
Force, however -- initiated force, coercion -- is immoral. What this bill proposes -- the further surrender to the State of individuals' private voluntary contracts, control over (and responsibility for, obviously) their respective economic lives, without their consent -- is immoral. And (necessarily) immoral force-monopoly (force is the only tool it has, after all) government isn't the solution. Stop looking to it to impose on your neighbors for you. Here's a more freedom-friendly, a more Constitutionally compliant, contracts-respecting option.
Government: GTFOOTW. Stop presuming to know better. You don't. It's true. Stop thinking that your Constitutionally-unauthorized-for-a-reason micromanagement adds anything, more than it does unintended consequences and institutionalized legal theft. And thus necessitating more such "solutions", from a government that doesn't -- that can't -- know better than individuals making choices in their own self-interest. Consider that we're here now precisely because of your past meddling in (e.g.) insurance and labor markets, above your delegated pay grade.
And some of us do not consent. Supposedly, you need that consent in this Constitutional Republic.
The insurance industry exists. Savvy entrepreneurs, who, based entirely on enlightened self-interest, desire to offer employment conditions conducive to retaining the best workers, exist. Employees, meanwhile, make choices in their own perceived self-interest (which, just by the way, they have an entirely-equal-to-the-employer right to do), regarding acceptable employment terms -- and they aren't necessarily the same choices as those of their neighbors (nor do they have to be -- not unless government imperiously mandates "one size harms all", that is).
Between them all, they know better than you what is best for them. The competitive market -- in this case for labor -- will decide what it wants, via voluntary private contracts. And the result, unlike from monopoly government, won't be "one size harms all". And even if you were qualified, you have no authority to overrule them. Any of them. Not in a free society. Hell, not even in this one.
Why do none of these people lobbying government for more "free" stuff because of their bad choices (and government's eagerness to provide it, at the expense of their neighors' wallets and liberty, to be sure) ever turn to the audience and say, "Learn from my mistakes! Take responsibility for your lives and the shit that can happen in them! Stop asking for handouts and subsidies because you never thought it could happen to you, and just go buy insurance!"
But wait a minute. What the hell's going on here, anyway?! Wasn't the NH Senate Finance Committee hearing on this here SB1, "relative to family and medical leave", a mere 4 weeks ago, on 1/29/2019? And isn't "crossover day" -- when each body receives bills that have survived the initial harried gauntlet in the originating chamber -- still, like, a month away?! Has the House really run out of things to do?! House Minority Leader Dick Hinch, any thoughts...?
Hmm. This legislative session is shaping up as potentially really expensive -- if not in blood, at least in treasure and liberty...First, they tried to slip SB16 in under the radar, so they could attach an ill-advised amendment to it dealing with authorizing unemployment benefits to federal employees affected by the recent government shutdown. Despite written communication from the federal government and repeated public comments advising against this provision from our own Department of Employment Security, House Democrats moved forward with a bad idea.They are doing a great job finding avenues to exploit the shutdown for political gain, and they seem to be willing to disregard customary processes and common sense as they charge down this road. Yesterday, their lack of forethought on this issue resulted in the committee needing to recess the executive session and delay action on this bill due to the volume of problems uncovered in the amendment. Haste makes waste.We’ve now learned that SB1 has been introduced in the House, and I can’t believe that with all of the other business we have to complete, that they would want or need to schedule a public hearing and begin work on this very complex legislation. Sure, it’s a Democrat legislative initiative to institute this family leave income tax program, but I can’t believe we’re diverting resources and time to this legislation during such a busy week dealing with House bills. The House has yet to act on the House version of this legislation, and they’re already scheduling a public hearing on the Senate version. I just can’t see the reasoning. Where has process and common sense gone?
Herewith, then, SB1 before the NH House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee, 2/26/2019 (remember, the Senate hearing -- and more commentary, natch -- is here). The rush to jump the "crossover" gun would suggest to me that the Dems are endeavoring to force Governor Sununu's hand before the voluntary option (yet still not government's delegated job) he's promised in partnership with VT even sees the light of legislative day. Why might that be...?
The sadly-limited offered opposition can be found interspersed between the responsibility-free anecdotes at about 1:05, 1:07, 1:33, 1:46 and 1:56.
Media
- Paid family and medical leave mandate clears state Senate | Health | unionleader.com - 2/14/2019
- House GOP Leader Says Democrats Rushed Bills, Disregarded Process - InDepthNH.org - 2/22/2019
- New Hampshire, Vermont Governors Pitch Two-State, Voluntary Paid Family-Leave Plan - WSJ - 1/16/2019
- Sununu Joins Vermont Governor to Pitch Plan for Voluntary Paid Family and Medical Leave | New Hampshire Public Radio - 1/16/2019
- Sununu Unveils Paid Family Leave Plan; Democrats Balk | Concord, NH Patch - 1/16/2019
- NH And Vermont Governors Propose Two-State Family Medical Leave Plan | NH1.com - 1/18/2019
- Soucy Signs Family Leave Bill; House Kills Casino Gambling, Protects ACA - InDepthNH.org - 5/8/2019
- NH Governor Vetoes Paid Family Leave, Calls It An 'Income Tax' | Concord, NH Patch - 5/9/2019
- Sununu vetoes paid family leave legislation | State | unionleader.com - 5/9/2019
- Sununu Vetoes Paid Family Leave Bill | New Hampshire Public Radio - 5/9/2019
- Five reasons Gov. Sununu was right to veto paid family leave wage tax - THE JOSIAH BARTLETT CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY - 5/13/2019
- Leaping on the income tax grenade - THE JOSIAH BARTLETT CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY - 5/24/2019
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Why Can't We Just End NEVER-AUTHORIZED Prohibition, Already?
Holy gorram hell, I'm so tired of fighting these fractious, presumptuous, obstinate, insubordinate, rule-of-law-resistive assholes. This was the opposition to (effectively "merely", given the regulatory state to remain) dialing back neo-prohibition: recalcitrant "servant" (yet entirely self-serving, and on the clock, thankyouverymuch) enforcers -- who should have no official positions other than those given to them by their employers (that's you, madam taxpayer) -- and nanny-state prohibitionists -- about whose opinions regarding my rights over my own body I could not possibly care less, even were I paid handsomely to do so (but if and when I do care what they think, I will pay them for their advice) -- and children whose perverse and troubling-to-a-free-society understanding of Constitutionally protected inalienable rights and the intended purpose of this limited servant government can only be explained, it seems, by the interest-conflicted indoctrination inflicted by government schools (get them out...!!!). So in other words, pretty much business as usual.
Don't accept the bullshit. The bill doesn't legalize "under-age use" (but the kids can still go die in the regime's undeclared elective wars of empire, and everybody's in agreement they can easily get it now, so...) nor "DUI" by anybody, nor does it somehow empower black markets (which are caused by fiat prohibitions of market-demanded goods and services, y'see -- and the passage of the 21st Amendment, repealing the delegated authority for the only nominally lawful, if nevertheless also foolish, substance prohibition in this country, is proof that we'd actually learned that painful lesson once upon a time). The "gateway effect" is but a gateway to that thus-enabled black market, and thereby prohibition, if we're being, y'know, honest, undermines itself. Indeed, the "forbidden fruit effect" is suggesting that youth use goes down when adults manage to regain their rights from servant governments operating entirely above their delegated pay grade. Despite so much prohibition surrounding their production for so long, too, the growing statistics simply don't support the hysterically prophesied increases in all manner of terrible things (like, say, overdose deaths). But even if they did, liberty, however, does support -- does demand -- respect for self-ownership. And ostensibly, this society was founded on respecting and protecting such individual liberty.
And contrary to the up-ended, progress-oppositional "conservatism" message of the defiantly entrenched self-ownership-averse prohibitionists, "Live free or die" NH's recalcitrant "servant" government has had many opportunities to "lead" on this issue in an actually productive and liberty-friendly manner, to simply accept the demonstrated will of their employers, the people, now approaching three-quarters of whom want an end to this madness (but whom do they think they are, right?). Starting just in the last decade, we've seen 2008's HB1567, or 2010's HB1652 (video here and here), or 2012's HB1705 (video here and here), or 2013's HB337 (video here and here), or 2014's HB492 (video here and here and here and here and here), or 2016's HB1610, HB1694 or HB1675, or 2018's HB656 (video here and here and here) or SB233 (video here), or 2019's still-to-come companion HB722.
The People -- the boss in this here shop, and overwhelmingly in favor of ending this unauthorized and horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) social-engineering experiment -- have been trying to lead their government, their servants, but have ultimately met defiant resistance at every turn.
While with the aforementioned HB492, the NH House became, in point of fact, the first legislative body in the country to approve the end of cannabis prohibition, sadly our "Democratic" governor at the time preferred conservative reactionism and the status quo to "leading". And the oligarchs in the NH Senate were more than happy to have her back in the unauthorized-to-them-to-begin-with "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. And so today NH is an island of prohibition in the northeast, entirely surrounded by the more enlightened, more liberty-friendly, more responsive, more obedient jurisdictions of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Canada. Yep. Mighty proud...
So. This day, 2/5/2019, the NH House Criminal Justice Committee gets its latest shot at restoring some semblance of limited government (it's bad enough that we're looking at yet another over-regulated government monopoly rather than true free-market competition, the unique driving metric of which is satisfying customers, rather than cronies), with HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" (which nonsense title is the type that prompted the absurdist question posed in a previous post, "how much will ending prohibition cost?" -- 'cuz simply stopping what you're not allowed to do in the first place shouldn't cost anything!).
The legislative-majority Democrats now actually have "legalization" in their platform -- what took so long, "liberals"? -- but now we have a GOP governor obsessed with placating the (also servant, if we really need the reminder) police state and "Incarceration Nation". So keep your cards and letters and phone calls coming, free people -- both to your "representatives", such as they are, and to the corner office...
Press
Don't accept the bullshit. The bill doesn't legalize "under-age use" (but the kids can still go die in the regime's undeclared elective wars of empire, and everybody's in agreement they can easily get it now, so...) nor "DUI" by anybody, nor does it somehow empower black markets (which are caused by fiat prohibitions of market-demanded goods and services, y'see -- and the passage of the 21st Amendment, repealing the delegated authority for the only nominally lawful, if nevertheless also foolish, substance prohibition in this country, is proof that we'd actually learned that painful lesson once upon a time). The "gateway effect" is but a gateway to that thus-enabled black market, and thereby prohibition, if we're being, y'know, honest, undermines itself. Indeed, the "forbidden fruit effect" is suggesting that youth use goes down when adults manage to regain their rights from servant governments operating entirely above their delegated pay grade. Despite so much prohibition surrounding their production for so long, too, the growing statistics simply don't support the hysterically prophesied increases in all manner of terrible things (like, say, overdose deaths). But even if they did, liberty, however, does support -- does demand -- respect for self-ownership. And ostensibly, this society was founded on respecting and protecting such individual liberty.
And contrary to the up-ended, progress-oppositional "conservatism" message of the defiantly entrenched self-ownership-averse prohibitionists, "Live free or die" NH's recalcitrant "servant" government has had many opportunities to "lead" on this issue in an actually productive and liberty-friendly manner, to simply accept the demonstrated will of their employers, the people, now approaching three-quarters of whom want an end to this madness (but whom do they think they are, right?). Starting just in the last decade, we've seen 2008's HB1567, or 2010's HB1652 (video here and here), or 2012's HB1705 (video here and here), or 2013's HB337 (video here and here), or 2014's HB492 (video here and here and here and here and here), or 2016's HB1610, HB1694 or HB1675, or 2018's HB656 (video here and here and here) or SB233 (video here), or 2019's still-to-come companion HB722.
The People -- the boss in this here shop, and overwhelmingly in favor of ending this unauthorized and horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) social-engineering experiment -- have been trying to lead their government, their servants, but have ultimately met defiant resistance at every turn.
While with the aforementioned HB492, the NH House became, in point of fact, the first legislative body in the country to approve the end of cannabis prohibition, sadly our "Democratic" governor at the time preferred conservative reactionism and the status quo to "leading". And the oligarchs in the NH Senate were more than happy to have her back in the unauthorized-to-them-to-begin-with "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. And so today NH is an island of prohibition in the northeast, entirely surrounded by the more enlightened, more liberty-friendly, more responsive, more obedient jurisdictions of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Canada. Yep. Mighty proud...
So. This day, 2/5/2019, the NH House Criminal Justice Committee gets its latest shot at restoring some semblance of limited government (it's bad enough that we're looking at yet another over-regulated government monopoly rather than true free-market competition, the unique driving metric of which is satisfying customers, rather than cronies), with HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" (which nonsense title is the type that prompted the absurdist question posed in a previous post, "how much will ending prohibition cost?" -- 'cuz simply stopping what you're not allowed to do in the first place shouldn't cost anything!).
The legislative-majority Democrats now actually have "legalization" in their platform -- what took so long, "liberals"? -- but now we have a GOP governor obsessed with placating the (also servant, if we really need the reminder) police state and "Incarceration Nation". So keep your cards and letters and phone calls coming, free people -- both to your "representatives", such as they are, and to the corner office...
Press
- Governor’s commission on alcohol and drugs against N.H. pot legalization - 1/25/2019
- Will NH legalize recreational marijuana use? - 2/3/2019
- Marijuana legalization showdown in N.H. State House Tuesday - 2/5/2019
- Big Turnout For Bill To Legalize Marijuana in New Hampshire - InDepthNH.org - 2/5/2019
- Hearing on latest bill to legalize pot marked by passionate debate | Crime | unionleader.com - 2/5/2019
- NH lawmakers hear arguments for, against legalizing recreational marijuana - 2/5/2019
- New Hampshire’s opioid crisis looms over marijuana legalization debate - The Boston Globe - 2/5/2019
- CCC chair "comfortable" with [MA] banking, retail progress - News - MetroWest Daily News, Framingham, MA - 2/7/2019
- Dave Solomon's State House Dome: A decade of efforts to legalize pot | Statehouse Dome | unionleader.com - 2/9/2019
- CloseUp: The debate over legalizing marijuana in NH - 2/10/2019
- With Marijuana Legalization Across All Borders, What Does It Mean For N.H.? | New Hampshire Public Radio - 2/12/2019
- Legalize Pot? Amid Opioid Crisis, Some New Hampshire Leaders Say No Way - The New York Times - 2/20/2019
- House Panel Recommends Passing Bill To Legalize Marijuana Use - InDepthNH.org - 2/21/2019
- House committee endorses bill to legalize recreational cannabis | Crime | unionleader.com - 2/21/2019
- My Turn: No proof of causation in anti-pot column - 2/25/2019
Friday, February 1, 2019
"It is an income tax ... right there in black and white"
"... plain and simple. Page two, line 35 ... Why must the government tell workers: 'this is the benefit you must pay for'? That is not a choice." They've "fixed" the "problem" in last year's bill: no more "opt-out". Simple coercion. Brilliant...!
All your contract are belong to us, youbetcha.
The quotes above are NH Senate Minority Leader Chuck Morse, from his testimony on SB1, "relative to family and medical leave", before the NH Senate Finance Committee, 1/29/2019. The video below leads off with a snippet from the very end, because I suspect it won't find its way into the official recordings (in addition to the now-standard (but still hit-or-miss) Senate committee audio recording, they live-streamed this hearing to Facebook for the first time), and I found it surprisingly rude. Uncollegial, even. The "space cadet" Chair Lou D’Allesandro disrespectfully references is Richard Lavers, Deputy Commissioner of the NH Dept of Employment Security, the state bureaucracy that would be tasked with administering this new government "beneficence" (with other people's money and contracts, naturally).
At about the 3:14:00 mark, Lavers presents the committee -- in response to committee questions, even -- with inconvenient facts and figures, the nuts and bolts and processes of implementation (repeating his similar duty at last year's hearing). In other words, he spoke to the content of the bill, as D'Allesandro claims to want at the end. But don't bother Chairman Lou with facts and figures when he's on a crusade. Damn eggheads, trying to confuse his subjects, spoil all his fun. Pay no attention to those mean old numbers and processes, children. Go back to sleep...
Testimony this year is happily willing to concede that this is, in fact, a subsidy -- although they get testy when it's directly put to them as such. An insurance attorney -- whose firm supplies this coverage right now, but would, believe it or not, just love a larger captive market, thankyouverymuch -- is downright giddy that "participation" would be coerced. A representative from a small business that proudly acknowledges -- leads with it, in fact -- the competitive advantage that offering such coverage affords them in the competitive market for labor -- it's good for their business -- yet nevertheless demands that government kill their profitable advantage in attracting and keeping the best employees. Relentless tales of people who experienced financial calamities because they'd chosen to not purchase insurance, now asking government to protect others from themselves by forcing them to buy insurance. We are told that, literally, "the future of our world" now rests on coerced paid family leave. I kid you not. But the construction unions are opposed. How 'bout that...
Otherwise, I say about everything else I want to say -- and here's a shock: it's all still relevant -- in the extended post on last year's first-crack ("government-solutions addiction", get it?) HB628, reposted below the video.
Press
Here's most of the text from last year's post (go here for the video, if you dare):
All your contract are belong to us, youbetcha.
The quotes above are NH Senate Minority Leader Chuck Morse, from his testimony on SB1, "relative to family and medical leave", before the NH Senate Finance Committee, 1/29/2019. The video below leads off with a snippet from the very end, because I suspect it won't find its way into the official recordings (in addition to the now-standard (but still hit-or-miss) Senate committee audio recording, they live-streamed this hearing to Facebook for the first time), and I found it surprisingly rude. Uncollegial, even. The "space cadet" Chair Lou D’Allesandro disrespectfully references is Richard Lavers, Deputy Commissioner of the NH Dept of Employment Security, the state bureaucracy that would be tasked with administering this new government "beneficence" (with other people's money and contracts, naturally).
At about the 3:14:00 mark, Lavers presents the committee -- in response to committee questions, even -- with inconvenient facts and figures, the nuts and bolts and processes of implementation (repeating his similar duty at last year's hearing). In other words, he spoke to the content of the bill, as D'Allesandro claims to want at the end. But don't bother Chairman Lou with facts and figures when he's on a crusade. Damn eggheads, trying to confuse his subjects, spoil all his fun. Pay no attention to those mean old numbers and processes, children. Go back to sleep...
Testimony this year is happily willing to concede that this is, in fact, a subsidy -- although they get testy when it's directly put to them as such. An insurance attorney -- whose firm supplies this coverage right now, but would, believe it or not, just love a larger captive market, thankyouverymuch -- is downright giddy that "participation" would be coerced. A representative from a small business that proudly acknowledges -- leads with it, in fact -- the competitive advantage that offering such coverage affords them in the competitive market for labor -- it's good for their business -- yet nevertheless demands that government kill their profitable advantage in attracting and keeping the best employees. Relentless tales of people who experienced financial calamities because they'd chosen to not purchase insurance, now asking government to protect others from themselves by forcing them to buy insurance. We are told that, literally, "the future of our world" now rests on coerced paid family leave. I kid you not. But the construction unions are opposed. How 'bout that...
Otherwise, I say about everything else I want to say -- and here's a shock: it's all still relevant -- in the extended post on last year's first-crack ("government-solutions addiction", get it?) HB628, reposted below the video.
Press
- New Hampshire, Vermont Governors Pitch Two-State, Voluntary Paid Family-Leave Plan - WSJ - 1/16/2019
- Sununu Joins Vermont Governor to Pitch Plan for Voluntary Paid Family and Medical Leave | New Hampshire Public Radio - 1/16/2019
- Sununu Unveils Paid Family Leave Plan; Democrats Balk | Concord, NH Patch - 1/16/2019
- NH And Vermont Governors Propose Two-State Family Medical Leave Plan | NH1.com - 1/18/2019
- Democrats unveil paid family, medical leave plan - 1/28/2019
- Debate begins on paid family leave plan for NH workers | Politics | unionleader.com - 1/28/2019
- N.H. Senate Democrats Begin Push For Paid Family Leave Plan | New Hampshire Public Radio - 1/29/2019
- Paid family leave proposal makes its NH Senate debut - New Hampshire Business Review - 1/30/2019
- A costly and unnecessary paid leave plan - THE JOSIAH BARTLETT CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY - 2/1/2019
- SB 1, Paid Family and Medical Leave, Passes Senate Finance Committee - InDepthNH.org - 2/5/2019
- Partisan Divide on Family and Medical Leave in Concord - InDepthNH.org - 2/14/2019
Here's most of the text from last year's post (go here for the video, if you dare):
"Family Leave Bill is Tax on Income"
That's the assessment of the Coalition of NH Taxpayers. But let's start here, though, 'cuz since financials bore me to tears, I rarely have a natural opportunity to focus on this shit.
Theft (noun): taking without the owner's consent.
Is that, by itself, a fair, unbiased, unprovocative, nonpartisan definition? I believe it is. It doesn't matter a lick what the thief intends to do with his newly acquired property. If the owner didn't consent, then it's theft. And in my definition of a free society, theft is unlawful. Rude. Frowned upon, even. Property rights are respected and upheld, regardless of the identity of the thief. Yes, even regardless of whether or not the thief has been "democratically elected." That is, in fact, what we believe is, self-evidently, the purpose for instituting a government.
Taxation is theft perpetrated by government, as your representative, in your name. And just as capos worked for, and were accountable to, Al Capone, your respective government representatives work for you. You are the "top capo" in this legal mafia. And thus you are responsible for the crime -- like theft -- that they commit which you condone (if, of course, you do so) simply because you happen to like what they propose to do with the stolen property -- your neighbors' property, that they quite possibly don't consent to surrender (which is why the IRS has so many guns). Either you (perhaps grudgingly) recognize this basic truism, or cognitive dissonance is about to make your head explode.
HB628, heard here before the NH House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, 1/16/2018, would set up yet another force-funded government entitlement that's nevertheless already available in the competitive (to the extent government "allows" it to be, of course) private sector.
For the moment, at least, a convoluted so-called "opt-out" provision is beneficently included, but privacy professional Rep Jess Edwards, starting at about 1:14:00, asserts that the Federal Trade Commission would characterize it as "unethical" and "an unfair and deceptive trade practice" -- were government to be actually held accountable to the rules it imperiously imposes on its employers, of course (hey, how terribly convenient that government doesn't hold itself to, well, even the standard standards, eh...?).
Except, even with the uniquely arduous, and shady (and precariously tenuous, to be sure) opt-out provision, the scheme won't generate enough theft to cover this bill's centrally-planned "utopia" -- per government's own testimony. Here's the "money shot," immediately following Rep Edwards, from Richard Lavers, Deputy Commissioner of the NH Department of Employment Security, responding to a question near the end of his testimony, at about 1:30:00.
"The work that Employment Security has done, in a mathematical analysis of various levels of participation, is that at an 8-week average duration, at a half-percent premium contribution, the only way this program is solvent is at 100% participation. At 90% participation, it's no longer solvent."Dire words, indeed, from someone who does dearly love a good wealth-transferring government entitlement -- at least when the coerced books balance, anyway, so at least there's that... He does figure that if the premium contribution were increased by fiat to .67%, and the duration decreased to just 6 weeks, it just might fly.
So. Oopsie-you-weren't-supposed-to-notice, but a proposed government program that's written to be insolvent, to fail ('course, we all know that won't happen: as Reagan said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"). And even the skeptical DC Lavel, as we later hear, wants it to be "successful", "to be around for a long time". But it won't be with voluntary contributions. Whatever shall we do...?
Where, then, will the money come from to make it solvent? Charging ridiculous sums -- sums necessary to sustain inevitably inefficient non-competitive government bureaucracies, sums that the innovative competitive private sector seems able to avoid without (ok, much, comparatively) subsidies -- surely won't fly with government's happily captured market -- the market that's been testifying all day that they'd like more free and subsidized stuff. Because they'd neglected to buy insurance for themselves (well, government takes care of those things, doesn't it...?).
That leaves, seems to me, 1) removing the (already intentionally onerous) "opt-out" provision altogether to ensure the elusive-yet-necessary 100% mandatory market "satisfaction", or 2) implementing a broad-based income tax to shore the whole collectivist mess up (and gosh, then what other new programs could we fund by raising the rate just a little bit more...?). Aw hell. Why not both...?!
As always, however, as Meldrim Thompson explained, "Low taxes are the result of low spending," not t'other way 'round. Especially as government crowds the private sector out of the market even further, costs will go up. Because there's simply no (market) pressure not to. And seriously, when was the last time a politician lost his job for spending too much of other people's money?
But more fundamentally, if this scheme -- even as presumably eventually modified -- is self-sustaining, if this is a profitable model, why does government need to be involved at all? If you want FMLI, go voluntarily contract directly with a competitive private-sector provider. It's available now. One doctor testifying in great support of this bill curiously told the committee how he's set up a private-sector foundation to voluntarily help people get this insurance! Problem solved.
So why don't all these people who've suffered such hardships because they didn't have insurance, instead of trecking to the legislature to beg for contract intervention, just go get insurance? What's the advantage of injecting unnecessary and expensive government / employer middlemen if the customer will be paying for it either way (right?), other than being able to legally steal subsidies from their neighbors' dinner tables?
And here's a shocker: businesses love to get their operating costs subsidized by taxpayers, too. Corporate welfare. Just ask the private-sector airline industry, with their public-sector "security" costs -- subsidized by you, whether you choose to fly, whether you choose to suffer their "security theater" at all, or not. Your protestations are irrelevant. As Al Haig put it, "Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes." It applies to the Warfare State, too, in case you haven't noticed. Does that seem right to you...?
Further, if offering such insurance as an employment benefit is, in fact, a competitive advantage for the business (as also noted by supporters, curiously), they will happily offer it sans government coercion, because it's in their economic self-interest. Because it attracts the best employees, thus increasing the business' productivity. Because it's profitable. Again, problem solved.
So why are they lobbying government to provide -- hell, to mandate -- their competitors with equivalent bennies? Why are they advocating to undermine their own perceived competitive advantage in a cutthroat market for labor? Seems counterintuitive -- even foolish -- doesn't it? Could it be that they just want a subsidy? And the public perception of being charitable with other people's money, of course -- but ya simply don't get moral credit for that.
But if they nevertheless don't believe it makes economic sense, what can we surmise about no-skin-in-the-game ('cuz it's not its money, it's yours) government's rosy "utopian" economic predictions?
Indeed, if it's inherently not profitable, what can we anticipate regarding where the funds will eventually have to come from for this force-based government entitlement that, once implemented, will... never... go... away?
If you're "allowed" (nevermind an actual competitive free market) even just a nominal "choice" -- that the FTC, according to someone who should know, would likely call "an unfair and deceptive trade practice," remember -- this bill as written will not work. According to a state economist. Even if you simply don't like competitive free markets and voluntary contracts. Won't work.
You can do better on your own. Right now. And you can control it. You should do that.
But then, in a free society, one that respects the rule of law -- hell, even in this one -- insurance contracts aren't supposed to be a government function in the first place. You have an unalienable right -- and a concomitant responsibility, notably -- to control your own contracts (including, potentially, a voluntary contract -- get this -- to manage your contracts). And to control your own property. Even if your addle-pated neighbor "neglected" to anticipate certain contingencies, you are under no lawful obligation whatsoever to bail them out. 'Course, you can always still choose to help them voluntarily. Used to be that way back in the day, in point of fact...
What if servant government simply gave up the repeatedly empirically failed notion that it perfectly and uniquely groks economics, the incomprehensible economy -- for everyone -- and knows better than you how to run your life -- at your neighbors' expense?
What if servant government was compelled to simply acknowledge and humbly accepted that it was never expressly delegated the lawful authority in the first place...?
Press
- Stop the secret income tax | New Hampshire
- NH HB 628: One Step Closer to the Perpetual Drain of an Income Tax - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok
- Letters: Income tax bill disguised as insurance bill is bad for NH | Manchester Ink Link
- Reminder: These New Hampshire House Republicans Voted for An Income Tax - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok
- Is New Hampshire Ready For Another Unsustainable Social Experiment? - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok
- House committee votes against New Hampshire family leave bill
- Family leave bill set back by committee vote | New Hampshire
- Is Gov. Sununu Going To Break His No Tax Pledge and Destroy the New Hampshire Advantage? - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok
- HB628: What We Learned From The House Finance Committee Work Session | The Liberty Block - Always principled, always libertarian
- Dave Solomon's State House Dome: Family-leave bill faces veto | New Hampshire (4/15/2018)
But ya know what? They already exist. They're called "insurance companies". And they're already hired by individuals (or even businesses) who voluntarily choose (to offer the employee benefit of) coverage. "Problem" solved, no government involvement necessary. Nor advisable. Nor prudent...And here's the key line: "HB 628 would effectively create an income tax, which I obviously can't support."The governor cited the inability of the departments of Employment Security and Insurance to certify that the program as proposed will be solvent, and called for independent research to determine the number of employees who would voluntary choose coverage, and the frequency with which they would make claims."Only then would we have any ability to determine the true cost of such a program," he wrote. "To advance the cause of an optional paid family- and medical-leave program, the state must independently hire outside experts to design and develop a program that is guaranteed to be solvent."
- Family leave: Numbers still don't add up | New Hampshire (4/16/2018)
- Sununu says paid family leave bill runs afoul of N.H.’s ‘Live Free or Die’ nature (4/17/2018)
- Capital Beat: Myths, realities in the paid family leave debate (4/21/2018)
- Leave policies: Senate Finance makes sense | New Hampshire (4/22/2018)
- Paid family and medical leave bill appears poised for defeat (4/23/2018)
I have to ask, "Regan Burke, of Salem," if you're begging the Senate to make you buy insurance, why don't you just go buy insurance...?
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Why Don't We Finally Just END Prohibition, Already?
We've reclaimed the right to produce beer at home -- much as the Founders did. We've reclaimed the right to produce wine at home -- much as the Founders did. Why not liquor -- much as the Founders did? A craft hobbyist's goal, after all, is not to reproduce Budweiser, let alone a toxic product in addition to an insipid one. This is a labor of love and pride.
Indisputable: NH is already similarly defying the (entirely unauthorized) feds on medical cannabis. And equally defiant full "legalization" in the "Live Free or Die" state (thus removing our embarrassing current "island of prohibition" status) is within reach despite yet another recalcitrant governor defying the will of the people.
Further, while the 21st Amendment leaves to the states the regulation of alcohol, it does not -- it cannot -- authorize those states to ignore the rest of the Constitution as long as their regulation simply mentions alcohol. The First, the Fourth, the Fifth, etc. remain fully in effect. We need not trade one unalienable right in order to secure government's permission (does that seem right to you?) to exercise another.
Herewith, HB473, "allowing hobby distillation of liquors," before the NH House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, 1/24/2019. The protectionist NH Wine and Spirits Brokers Association opposes it, big surprise. The prohibitionist New Futures opposes it, big surprise. Neither bothered to testify. The public hearing for 2017's similar HB427 came and went before your humble chronicler was even aware of its existence, and went down in flames. Let's get it right this time...
Indisputable: NH is already similarly defying the (entirely unauthorized) feds on medical cannabis. And equally defiant full "legalization" in the "Live Free or Die" state (thus removing our embarrassing current "island of prohibition" status) is within reach despite yet another recalcitrant governor defying the will of the people.
Further, while the 21st Amendment leaves to the states the regulation of alcohol, it does not -- it cannot -- authorize those states to ignore the rest of the Constitution as long as their regulation simply mentions alcohol. The First, the Fourth, the Fifth, etc. remain fully in effect. We need not trade one unalienable right in order to secure government's permission (does that seem right to you?) to exercise another.
Herewith, HB473, "allowing hobby distillation of liquors," before the NH House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, 1/24/2019. The protectionist NH Wine and Spirits Brokers Association opposes it, big surprise. The prohibitionist New Futures opposes it, big surprise. Neither bothered to testify. The public hearing for 2017's similar HB427 came and went before your humble chronicler was even aware of its existence, and went down in flames. Let's get it right this time...
- Home Brewing Is Legal, And Home Distilling Should Be Too
- The Whiskey Making Was Hard, But the Government Was Easy - Reason.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)