| Hudson~Litchfield | Pelham~Windham | Salem |
Senator Mike Downing
Mike Downing, District 22 state senator, today criticized Governor John Lynch’s proposal to raise taxes even further on the people of New Hampshire to balance the state budget.
“I voted against the budget last year because it was fiscally irresponsible. The budget that was passed spends too much money and was manufactured with unrealistic revenue expectations. As a result, the state is facing a $225 million deficit, and rather than scale back spending, the governor wants to raise taxes to fill the budget gap,” said Downing.
Senator Downing was the only member of the Senate Ways and Means Committee to vote against the inflated revenue estimates and now, based on that overinflation, the governor is seeking to raise other taxes to resolve the budget deficit.
“Higher taxes will send an already struggling economy spiraling even further. It is unacceptable to raise taxes further on struggling families across New Hampshire. State government needs an overhaul with reforms to reduce spending, create more efficiency in government, and reward state government agencies and employees to save more money in their departments,” continued Downing.
Last week, the governor proposed increasing cigarette taxes for the third time since being elected, and instituting a new tax and higher betting limits on lottery tickets. The governor estimated that the budget shortfall could reach $225 million.
Downing stated, “Now is the time to reach out to business and community leaders, experts in government efficiency, and research other state initiatives to save money in state government. What happened to the governor’s ‘efforts’ to bring efficiency in government”? Where are the real reform proposals from the governor’s office?” (Governor Lynch 7/06 press release: Governor Kicks Off Major Effort to Modernize State Government, Improve Efficiency)
“When families across New Hampshire are tightening their belts, it is incumbent on our state leaders to do the same. I hope the Legislature says ‘No More Tax Increases’ to the governor,” concluded Downing.
Michael Downing, of Salem, is a first term state senator from District 22 representing the towns of Salem, Atkinson, Plaistow and Pelham.
Jordan Ulery
The legislative session has ended for 2008, barring any serious events that would mandate a real Special Session, as opposed to the unnecessary and purely political “rump special” held in June. One of the actions of the General Court this past year had a direct impact upon the ability of law enforcement to actually convict felons and exonerate innocent persons.
As part of the so-called Internet Predators bill, modifications to the collection and storage of DNA evidence rules in New Hampshire were attempted. Unfortunately, special interest groups, including trail lawyers and the ACLU, mounted a massive disinformation campaign regarding DNA, its uses and abuses.
We have all seen one of the CIS series on television where a minute bit of “material” is collected, tested and used to identify a person out of a group of suspects. Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) use of DNA evidence was a certain stain on a certain blue dress indicating inappropriate behavior and revealing a lie. Many are not, however, aware of the use of old evidence containing DNA that is used to exonerate persons, some after years in prison and most recently releasing one from death row.
DNA is most often associated with crimes of violence including sexual assault, murder and aggravated assault. The evidence can, however, also be used in the crimes of fraud, forgery, theft, identity theft, credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, in fact in virtually any case where a person was present or touched an item or left a sample to be collected.
The opponents of DNA testing treat it as a tracking device to monitor ones movements across time. That is not exactly a correct view. DNA evidence is collected from a crime scene, not randomly, not without cause. That evidence is then entering into a national database of similar codes. Interestingly, in the national database no names are associated with a sample. The particular sample is only identified with a case number and the department by which the sample was collected. If there is a match then the inquiring department must contact the entering department and determine if the evidence is even valid. This is not some massive Big Brother database of your particular DNA. Rather it is a database of evidence collected at crime scenes. If there is a match with a stored sample, then a suspect is identified. Random inquiry of the database looking for so-and-so’s DNA is not possible simply because the DNA is not stored by name, rather by case file.
At a crime scene there are many reasons for your particular DNA to appear. Merely walking in a room may cause you to drop a hair with its follicle intact thus leaving a bit of you in the room. DNA evidence is not the end-all and be-all of crime scene analysis, it is only a tool.
I became aware recently of a case in which a man in Ayer, Massachusetts, was charged with serial rape and had been imprisoned on eyewitness testimony. The Innocence Project took over the case. They found old evidence with still viable DNA in stains on the victims’ garments and proved that the man in prison was not a contributor to the stains. The man was released from prison, albeit after 20 years of incarceration. Too bad they did not have DNA evidence in the early 80s!
What was attempted this year, but was changed by much misinformation decimated to the members of the House and Senate, was merely to collect DNA from every person convicted of a felony and submit that evidence to the national database. DNA was not to be taken from persons arrested as the FBI wanted. DNA was not to be taken from everyone, as is done in parts of Europe. DNA was only to be taken from those who had gone to trial and had been convicted whether or not DNA evidence was involved in the investigation of their specific crime.
What would this do to you and I? In effect nothing, if we did not commit a felony. If we did commit a felony and were convicted, then our DNA was to be entered in the national database. If some police department across the nation had a sample from a crime scene then they could check that sample with ours in the database. If we did not also commit a crime across the country, no problem. If we did commit the crime, however, and had not yet been detected, then they would have to contact the New Hampshire State Police, determine the file and the department associated with the sample and request that file from the arresting agency. Then a second comparison would most likely be demanded by defense counsel.
What is now the case in New Hampshire, one of only four states that do not collect DNA evidence from felons, is that a person who is perhaps a serial criminal can come to New Hampshire and effectively hide. That person, man or woman, can stay in the Granite State and if caught they are safe from detection for the other crimes they may have committed. In the same fashion those who have not committed a crime are at a disadvantage when attempting to prove innocence, not just being not guilty, but actual innocence, by depriving them of a larger database of sample to search for the actual criminal.
Watch for this element to re-appear next year as a separate bill. I am certain the Attorney General will ask someone to sponsor a bill allowing New Hampshire to detect criminals and, conversely, help prove a person’s innocence.
Jason Bedrick
The “Live Free or Die” state has a long and proud history of limited government, but after two years of Democrat rule in Concord, New Hampshire is starting to look a lot different. Taxes have been raised, regulations imposed, freedoms curtailed, and parental rights eroded. The size and scope of government has grown while the budget surplus has become a budget deficit. Below are just a few of the more glaring examples.
One of the more obvious regulations is the smoking ban in restaurants and bars. A free society entails the freedom to make choices with which others disagree without government intervention, so long as one’s decision doesn’t harm another. I don’t smoke, but I believe that it’s the right of a restaurant owner to decide whether his or her restaurant will be open to smoking, not the government’s; and it’s the right of the consumer to choose to eat there or not. Long before Democrats banned smoking in restaurants, many restaurants chose to go smoke-free because of the market demand.
Democrats even managed to ban an entire industry. Despite the lack of even a single complaint lodged with the banking commission for the past few years, Democrats capped interest rates on short-term loans. Whereas payday lenders would charge about $20 on a typical $100 two-week loan, now they can charge no more than $1.38. Democrats knew that such an extreme measure would put the entire industry out of business along with over a hundred jobs, but they did it anyway.
When we ban a free market, we create a black market. There will still be a demand from the poorest among us for short-term, high interest loans. Who will fill that demand now? Answer: loan sharks. This type of nanny-state regulation harms those it is intended to help.
In 2007, the Democrats repealed the “parental notification” law requiring parents to be notified if their minor daughter is seeking an abortion, except in cases where her immediate health is in danger or when she fears for her safety. Democrats had argued that the statute was unconstitutional, yet when Republicans proposed a new parental notification law this year, based on language upheld by the Supreme Court, Democrats voted it down anyway.
Last year, the Democrats passed a bloated budget based on inflated revenue projections that was 17.5 percent larger than the previous biennium’s budget, despite warnings about a souring economy. (For comparison, the previous budget was only 2.28 percent larger than its predecessor.) To pay for the $475 million in new spending, Democrats passed several tax increases and raised the fees on car registration, deed registration, court filing, and more.
Yet despite the tax and fee increases, New Hampshire is still facing a $200 million budget deficit. Earlier this month, Governor Lynch called for an unprecedented “special session” of the legislature to fill $80 million of the deficit with a bond, which essentially amounts to a tax on our children, and House leadership complied. Democrats abandoned the Granite State tradition of “pay-as-you-go” fiscal responsibility by paying for their new programs with what amounts to a credit card (and we don’t even get Sky Miles!).
Moreover, the “special session” bonding bill had no public hearing, no vetting in a committee, and a mere 24-hour notice. In fact, the bill itself wasn’t drafted until the morning of the session, so all amendments had to be drafted in the same day. Whatever happened to careful deliberation? Whatever happened to accountability? Whatever happened open government?
This is not the New Hampshire way.
email: news@areanewsgroup.com Copyright © 2007 Area News Group