CLAREMONT CITIZENS FOR LOWER TAXES

TEA PARTY GROUP

GUNS DO NOT KILL, PEOPLE KILL

Since the recent tragedy of the massive shooting of students in #Parkland, it gives us all pause about balancing our freedom and security.
Many people have been quick to react and are pushing for bans on AR-15 or on bump stocks which modify semi-automatics to automatic rifles.  Their argument is that the average gun enthusiast has no need for this weapon and that the second amendment was written over two hundred years ago before the production of automatic weapons.  Yet, these individuals fail to realize that automatic weapons are still needed by the citizenry if we are attacked by a foreign power or terrorists as this was the reason for the second amendment-to protect the citizenry from foreign powers or even tyranny.  Remember, their were no specifics on the bearing of arms for that reason, and the citizenry is the first defense against tyranny and IS the well-regulated militia.  You can only look to the deadliest attack on American soil on Sept. 11, 2011 and see all the local people on the ground to know that is a fact.
Why make guns the target when anyone who is willing to kill can use knives, bayonets, shears, homemade bombs, and even motor vehicles.  All of these weapons have already been used in massive killing; so by banning guns will not alleviate the problem as anyone who plans on killing will do so by other means.
Any gun in the hands of someone who is mentally deranged, criminal, or has been radicalized can become a recipe for disaster.  So, the issue here is not to target guns, but to the ills of society-communicating to others, addressing mental health issues, monitoring youth's activities such as movies, video games, and internet use along with social media.  Other people can influence others on social media platforms and even excessive use of social media has been known to lead to depression.  Parents and community leaders must become more pro-active with social problems.
Legislatively, more has to be done to strengthen background checks in the states and to keep guns out of the hands of the youth.  However, regardless of how strong the laws are, there will always be individuals who will be able to buy guns on the black market or steal them from gun owners.  So, regulations may help, but not solve the problem.

They only way that we can guarantee our safety whether it be at the workplace, school, or any public place is to "Carry a Firearm".  This is our right guaranteed under the second amendment in the constitution, and it is there for a purpose.  The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Whether it is a school, work place, or any public place, cameras or even security officers cannot always prevent the problem, but I believe that adding metal detectors at main entrances of school will diminish if not end the problem.  Many school districts across the nation employ resource officers so that we can use their expertise in coordinating the detectors so that no one will pass through with a weapon and if they do, the resource officer will be equipped to remedy the situation. Costs can be born by grants or donations from philanthropic foundations so that local taxpayers will not be required to foot the bill.  The bottom line is students should not be carrying weapons of any kind into a school and to that end, we as a society must practice personal responsibility with parental responsibility at the forefront of the gun debate.

@2018 Cynthia Howard All Rights Reserved


ELECTION 2018 WHO'S TO BLESS AND WHO'S TO BLAME



On my latest broadcast, I will be discussing the outcome of the mid-term elections and what caused at least a partial rejection of republican candidates.


President Trump saved the US Senate by blazing across the country and holding huge rallies to motivate voters and #getoutthevote, and he has the results to show for it.  Yet, there were significant losses in the US House which is a historical precedent, and yet despite the losses, he managed to keep the losses at half of what his predecessors did.  


In NH, we were not as lucky as we experienced losses in both house and senate of the NH legislature.  I believe that it was a combination of factors including censorship of conservatives on social media, voter fraud, incumbent advantage, the disadvantage of the Trump effect in a non-presidential election, lack of Republican ground game (resources, enthusiasm, and complacency), absence of the Trump economy as it pertains to job growth, and an aging, retirement, and disabled populous.  Perhaps, the Democrats regrouped after their loss in 2016  and focused on their weak areas, and it resulted in Wins.  Regardless, this is a call to action for all conservatives, the tea party wing, and republicans to go the extra mile in 2020 because it easy to lose, but very hard to win.  TUNE IN!


2018 @all rights reserved Cynthia Howard




LESS EQUALS MORE

School district officials along with other politicians are touting the $34.7 million school budget as a lower tax budget.  But, is it really? 

Just because they cut additional spending making it $152,000 less than this year's budget, the school board placed some heavy spending within the main budget including a one years teacher's contract $268,486 and for administrators $29,723.  Each teacher will receive a $1,250 raise and a longevity payment for approximately $2,000 for teachers with 18 or more years of service.  This means that teachers will be receiving two to three times the amount of the c. p. I. which currently stands at 1.3%.  In addition, we will be paying more of the costs for their health insurance which will be increasing from 90% to 97%.  Now, I ask you- are you getting these benefits where you work-highly unlikely.  If you receive a raise tied to the c. p. I., you are doing well, but I am willing to bet not at 3 %, and with your insurance benefits, if your employer pays 80%, you are doing good, not anywhere near 97%.  In fact a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that in NH that most employers pay 75%, and you would be required to pick up the 25%.  So why should we be required to pay this astronomical amount of 97% when we do not receive this ourselves or are unable to afford insurance-very unfair.  As with the other contracts, it should be in a separate warrant article not in the "game" format as I stated at the deliberative session.
The other aspect that you might take into consideration is the school board may be pandering to the teachers so that the teachers settle the dispute on the block scheduling-money talks-just a thought.
The default budget is higher than the main-actually it is this years budget-$34.8.  So, they purposely placed the contracts in the main budget to guarantee passage because people would normally vote for the lower of the two, and yet, this may not be the case.  As the school district continues to lose state aid (stabilization grant dollars) resulting from lower student population, then, that could continue to increase the tax rate.  This year the school district lost $460,000 so, if this happens again the tax rate will go up again NOT down.  In fact, the tax rate has already gone up $1.45 per $1,000, and officials stated last year that it would be a slight increase, but that was not the case.  Officials have been unsuccessful at recouping the loss aid, and I do not see how anything will change it.  And, if you or any business loses money, you would not be granting raises to your employees, but instead laying off workers.  If you  are worried about your tax bill, VOTE NO AND SEND THEM A MESSAGE!!!
In the case of the other union contracts-maintenance/transportation, secretarial, and paras, the situation is the same and could impact the tax rate even more because they are THREE YEAR contracts.  If officials cannot accurately predict projections in a single year, how can they predict two or three years down the road?  They are asking you for funding for the next THREE YEARS NOT ONE!  If you are upset at the skyrocketing tax bills, you can STOP IT BY VOTING NO ON THE CONTRACTS.
By his own admission, the superintendent has stated that 80% percent of the school budget is employee driven and is UNSUSTAINABLE!!!  Do you need to know more?
In this town,  it IS NOT a revenue problem, BUT a SPENDING PROBLEM!!!  YOU CAN STOP HIGH TAXES BY VOTING NO ON TUES., MARCH 14!!!!  Just as you came out in record numbers on Nov.8 and elected President Trump; continue the movement where this vote will impact you the most!!!
Cynthia Howard @2017 all rights reserved


REFERENDUM ON BIG GOVERNMENT


On Tues., Nov. 3, Claremont residents will go to the polls to vote for members of the city council.  Claremont has the distinction of having the highest tax rate in NH and the second highest municipal tax rate.  According to the NH Employment Security, the largest employer is the Claremont school district and also, on that list is the city. So, government is the largest employer in Claremont; unlike Newport where it is Sturm Ruger and in Charlestown, it is Whelen Engineering.  Is it any wonder why we have high taxes?

As long as we continue to elect big government candidates, taxes will remain high, manufacturing firms will not locate here, and people will not move here.  We cannot continue to elect big government candidates and expect different results because it will NOT happen.  In this article, I will enlighten you on the candidates who are running in the upcoming election.

In the mayoral race, both Jim Neilsen and Charlene Lovett are big spenders.  In 2012, Jim Neilsen violated his oath of office (NH Constitution, Part 1, Article 8) and NH RSA 91-a (NH Right To Know Law) when he participated in the illegal meeting via email with asst. mayoral candidate and current city councilor Kyle Messier.  The meeting was not publicly noticed and not in the public purview.  This was clearly a violation, but it never was legally pursued.  Both Neilsen and Messier should not be even on the ballot.  Charlene Lovett initiated the smoking ban in our public parks because she said that attendance was low in the Farmer's Market which she runs; yet, after the ban was passed, it seems that there maybe even less attendance.  So,the smoking ban was counterproductive, and with all the other problems that we have in this city, why would she focus on infringing on the rights of smokers?  In the mayoral race, there is no choice.

In the assistant mayoral race, both Victor Bergeron and Kyle Messier have done nothing to curb spending and lower taxes.  They have both been on the council way too long.  Victor Bergeron is a retired city firefighter, and he will always vote for more spending in the fire department.  Kyle Messier is a public dental hygienist, and her position is government funded.  The building which houses her employer the Community Dental Clinic leases its space from the Claremont Developmental Authority; so, you could say this is a conflict of interest.  So both of their jobs and retirement are funded by the taxpayers.  On the other hand, A.. J. Maranville works in the private sector and will use his business skills to keep our costs at a minimum and will vote on the side of the taxpayers.

In the race for ward two, Paul LaCasse has a record of fighting for the taxpayers and will not shirk from his duties.  He is running against Scott Pope who is another government employee in the school district.  In 2008, during a heated council meeting, Scott Pope abruptly quit and walked away from the people of Claremont.  What would prevent him from doing that again?

In the at-large races, the incumbents-Keith Raymond, John Simonds, and James Reed are all big spenders.  Keith Raymond is a call firefighter, and John Simonds is the Sullivan County Sheriff.  In addition, Keith Raymond's wife Allison works on the checklist for the city elections, and John Simonds' wife Crystal works as the School Resource Officer.  They are part of the government and will always vote on the side of the government especially for fire and police.  Allen Damren is a retired Claremont School District administrator and is now employed in the Grantham School District.  Similarly, Bruce Temple is a former Claremont public works director who is now assistant public works director in Lebanon.  These two candidates would be no different than those who sit on the council now.  In addition, Ian Gates, another candidate favors a public information officer which means bigger government and more taxes.  However, there is ONE candidate in the at-large race who will fight for the taxpayers and is a businessmen who will work hard to curb spending,  That candidate is Thomas LaCasse. 

If you are sick and tired of listening to politicians who just sit and talk, vote Tues., Nov. 3 for candidates who will get the job done.  Vote for A. J. Maranville for Assistant Mayor, Paul LaCasse for Ward Two, and Thomas LaCasse for At-Large. 


Cynthia "Cindy" Howard

@2015





DE-FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD 

Pro-Life groups have scheduled protests across the country this weekend (Sat., Aug. 22, 2015) in wake of the horrific actions by doctors of Planned Parenthood harvesting fetal body parts and organs of the aborted.  While I do support the protests at the offices of Planned Parenthood by these pro-life groups as guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution, I believe that it would be much more effective for the people of this country to stand in protest at the U. S. Capitol building in Washington, DC because congress holds the purse strings and has the authority to vote on ending the funding altogether.  In addition, we the people must continue to contact our members of congress by telephone at (202) 224-3121 or email to let them know that we want to cease funding the half billion dollars that Planned Parenthood receives each year.  To put an end to these horrible actions, we must stop the funding source-CONGRESS at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization/business; it is not an agency of the government; it is PRIVATE.  Why are they even receiving taxpayer funds to begin with? It is not the role of government to fund PRIVATE businesses.  One reason is that they have powerful lobbyists in DC as well as in every state.  These lobbyists are paid to make sure that Planned Parenthood is funded and perhaps, maybe through the lobbyist or super pac, the elected official receives compensation through campaign contributions.  Oh, what a vicious, corrupt circle with total disregard for the people of this country, and in this case, the lives of the innocent and unborn.

Cynthia "Cindy" Howard
@2015




THE OCTOPUS


This is the flowchart  of the SAU 6 School Office which includes many positions including four additional ones-Curriculum Instruct & Assessment Coordinator, Network Administrator, Custodian, and Federal Funds Bookkeeper.   Two of the positions are grant-funded (Network Administrator and Federal Funds Bookkeeper; the other two positions will add approximately $125,000 to the 2015-16 budget which includes salary and benefits.  Essentially, by adding personnel, the school district is creating a bloated budget and an EDUCATION COMPANY which is comparable to what the Dept. of Education does in Washington DC.  I almost think that this is the goal of the Federal Dept. of Education to wave millions of dollars at local school districts and give them an incentive to take the money, but by doing so, a local mini department of education is formed, and it is ALL PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS (locally, state, and federal).  In addition, we will continue to lose local control by having to meet federal requirements and the ever increasing costs locally.

  During the SAU Meeting held on Thurs., Dec. 18, 2014, the director of federal programs stated that when the grants for these positions expire and the federal funds will no longer be available; those positions will no longer exist.  Yet, I have seen it time and time again where other federal positions remain and then, become funded by LOCAL TAXPAYERS. 


It is the same mindset with Taxes and Fees-once they are enacted; they are VERY UNLIKELY to be repealed and the same goes for bureaucrats-officials will almost always "make the case" for the need.   In order for we the people to take back our schools, we must refuse federal funding, and then, we would not be obligated, and we would really be in control.  Only You Can Destroy The Out of Control Octopus!



FEDERAL GRANTS ARE NOT THE ANSWER



The Claremont city council accepted another grant at the Dec. 10, 2014 meeting.  The grant is federally funded by the DOT and is disbursed by the NH DOT, and it is known as the Safer Routes To School Grant (SRTS).  The grant was begun as a result of the federal highway bill known as SAFETEA_LU and was funded by Congress since 2005.  Since its inception, the grant has cost taxpayers nationally over a half billion dollars and has added to the national debt which now stands at over $18 trillion dollars.  Local officials state how the grant will reimburse us $250,000 and that there is no tax impact.  Yet, the grant will add to future local costs in the areas of maintenance and personnel in keeping the grant items in check.  In essence, the grant is a tool used by the federal government to force local cities and towns to SPEND.   For if we did not receive the grant, we would not have to spend the money.  Grants are not free, and there are consequences in applying and accepting them.  Overall, grants are placing a tremendous burden upon states and cities and towns.   The question that we should be asking ourselves is why do we need the federal government to oversee projects and force us to spend when we should be doing these things on our own.  The role of the federal government is limited and has no place in our cities and towns!


The underlying motivation for the grant is CLIMATE CHANGE, and the reduction of greenhouse gases by cutting down on motorized transportation and replacing it with walking and biking.  Yet, it is being hidden under the guise of the health and safety of our children, and it is nothing more than a farce!  AMERICA MUST WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!


CHECK OUT THE VIDEO OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT IN CLAREMONT AT www.youtube.com/user/cclttv1




ELECTION REFLECTIONS ON THE CHARTER VOTE


Those of us who were charter commission members and who worked for ten months on drafting the new charter assembled a document which would improve our government in more ways than one.  We worked to present an outstanding document before the voters.  I believe that we succeeded in that aspect.  It was my hope that the citizens would vote in favor of the charter change, but unfortunately, there were forces beyond our control.  Even though the outcome was not what I had hoped for, I am proud of our accomplishment and what we presented to the people.


The People who were opposed to the change in the city charter waged an aggressive and expensive campaign against we who were the proponents.  Most of the individuals who were opposed have ties to the city government in one shape or another.  They are either city employees or family members of city employees or members of city boards.  It seems that they were afraid of  losing their financial standing or power, and they fought to protect their own interest.

They influenced and swayed the voters into believing that the proposed charter would effect city services and the operations of the city which was entirely untrue.   They used scare tactics and misinformation to get the voters to oppose it.  It is unfortunate that many voters were ill informed and misguided with the information.  As a result, THE PEOPLE OF CLAREMONT HAVE LOST A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE ON NOT ONLY ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN THEIR GOVERNMENT, BUT ALSO IN HAVING THEIR VOICE HEARD.. 

MOODY PARK CLAREMONT, NH JULY 2014

 
DEBRIS FROM LOGGING

MOODY PARK UTILITY BUILDING ABOVE

 

Subscribe To My website.  A tea party group which fights locally,statewide, and nationally for accountability, limited government, constitution, lower taxes, anrd less spending

  • Subscribing allows you to get site updates. Your email address will be kept private.