• Advertisement

Why Senator Dan Innis Is Wrong In Opposition To Raising The Minimum Wage

Small Businesses want a higher minimum wage because it increases local spending and spurs economic growth.

Inflation from raising the minimum wage will be hardly noticeable to most people.

Here we go again. Senator Donna Soucy introduced a bill to raise the NH Minimum Wage to $12 an hour and Republicans are already trying to convince the people that raising the minimum wage is wrong.

Today Republican State Senator Dan Innis opined that we should let New Hampshire businesses raise wages and the government should not force an increase.

Innis talks about how raising the Minimum Wage hurts businesses and hurts Granite Staters who would be forced to pay higher prices for the increased cost in labor.

“Raising the minimum wage doesn’t transfer costs from wealthy businesses to the workers. It simply transfers costs to customers.”

Which is it Senator: Are the businesses going to absorb those costs or are the people of NH going to have to pay for them?

Don’t worry, I will tell you why both statements are wrong.

First lets start with the fact that the majority of minimum wage workers do not work for “small businesses,” they actually work for large multi-national corporations.

Nobody actually expects greedy corporations to absorb all of the costs of raising wages, even though all of them could. Most of these multi-national employers spend more money buying back their own stocks to artificially inflate their stock prices or paying out dividends to their shareholders. Both of these options push obscene amounts of money to the CEO’s and Executive Boards who are given millions of “stock options” as compensation every year.

Contrary to what Sen. Innis says small businesses actually support increasing the minimum wage.

“A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase ‘would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities,’” stated the Department of Labor in a recent blog post.

Even the Small Business Majority, a group run by small business owners who “focus on solving the biggest problems facing small businesses today,” have come out in support a national $12 hour minimum wage.

Increased labor cost will inevitably be pushed on to the consumers.

Oh the inflation! Milk prices will skyrocket, food prices will triple, restaurant prices will make going out to eat unaffordable….and so on and so on.

Yeah, we will hear all of that. The fact is that it is completely untrue.

Yes, there will be some minor inflation as a result of pushing wages up but it will hardly be noticeable.

Lets take Wal-Mart for example: If Wal-Mart raised their minimum wage to $12 an hour and passed all of the $3 billion in additional labor costs onto the consumer (instead of taking anything from their $12 billion in profits).

How much more do you think the average Wal-Mart shopper would be forced to pay? The answer is around $12.49 a year.

The average Wal-Mart shopper would end up paying less than $.50 cents per visit to ensure that all Wal-Mart employees made at least $12 an hour.   We are talking about $1 a month in additional costs. That increase will hardly break your wallet.

Lastly, can we finally stop promoting this lie that all minimum and low-wage workers are teenagers! The facts just do not support this and common sense proves it cannot possibly be true.

Think about it: when you buy a coffee on your way into work is it a teenager at the counter? Who is working the counter at McDonalds when you go to buy lunch?

Odds say that the answer to both question are that it is a woman over the age of 25.


Below is a snapshot of who in New Hampshire would be affected if we raised the minimum wage to $12 by 2020.  For example, 93,000 workers over the age of 20 would see a raise in wages, compared to the 22,000 below age 20.

(Data from EPI.org)

How Are The Humane Society, The USDA, Peter T Paul, and ‘Dr. Evil’ All Connected To NH Politics

OK folks time to connect the dots.

What does the Humane Society of the United States, a Super Bowl ad, Dr. Evil, Peter T. Paul college of business and economics at UNH and a sudden USDA data purge have in common? Settle in and get out your graph paper.

Did you see this ad that ran just before the start of the Super Bowl?

Are you angry or confused about the Humane Society now? Before you jump to any conclusions, let me tell you about the political hacks that produced the ad, why I think it happened, and how this duplicitous ad relates  to New Hampshire politics.

Where The Advertisement Came From

The two-minute ad was created by HumaneWatch.org, a “project” of the Center for Consumer Freedom. According to their website, HumaneWatch.org is “Keeping a watchful eye on the Humane Society of the United States.”

In reality, the Center for Consumer Freedom is nothing more than one of many PR websites for a non-profit front group created by Rick Berman and Company, and is designed to spread misinformation or outright lies about the Humane Society.

If truth in advertising mattered, the more accurate name for Mr. Berman’s operations could be Lies R Us!  Mr. Berman revels in marketing and selling lies.

Wearing one of his many highly paid PR hats, talking to energy executives in 2014,

“Mr. Berman said in his speech, (companies) must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed and anger and turn them against the environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty.”  (New York Times, 2014)

Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil

Other Rick Berman non-profit front groups include: The Employment Policies Institute, Union Facts, PETA Kills Animals, Maternity Pens, and dozens more.

Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, is the CEO of Berman and Company, a D.C. based public relations firm that specializes in taking money from corporations and industry lobbyists to create a PR campaign against proposed legislation.

“Masquerading as a legitimate non-profit organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is a front group for corporations trying to thwart animal welfare, environmental, and other public interest reforms,” stated the website WhoAttacksHSUS.org.

Berman creates a non-profit front group, which is funded with dark/secret money from his corporate friends, and then he pays himself to run the non-profit as their Executive Director.

“According to CCF’s 2008 tax filing, 92 percent of all revenue taken in by CCF went straight into the pockets of Berman and his for-profit PR firm which appears to be nothing less than a personal enrichment scheme,” added WhoAttacksHSUS.org.

The non-profit front group then creates a website and funds researchers in their think-tanks to manufacture reports that lobbyists can then use to sway legislators and push in op-eds against the proposed legislation.

Berman then goes on TV, using any one of his dozens of non-profit Executive Director titles, to push his propaganda through the media as the “opposing view.”  Berman never discloses that he is being paid by corporations and industry lobbyists to spread his misinformation.

Berman and Company have been using this formula to thwart any increase in the minimum wage for over 25 years.  Berman has an accomplice in his minimum wage fight, an economist by the name of Joseph Sabia (aside: Berman’s go to guy,  was recently hired by the Peter T. Paul college of Business and Economics at UNH,) who is brought on  to create questionable reports showing how raising the minimum wage would hurt low-wage workers and kill jobs.  Writing economic papers for Berman has its benefits. Sabia has collected over $200,000 in grant money from Berman’s group in the last eight years.

(More on Sabia and Peter T. Paul in a minute)

The Humane Society of the United States Becomes The Target

So why did Berman, a paid shill for the industry, come out and attack the Humane Society of the United States on national television?

One reason is because the Humane Society Legislative Fund came out hard against Donald Trump in the 2016 election.  This was the first time in their history the Humane Society of the US has ever endorsed a Presidential candidate.  They released this ad in early October that stated a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere.”

In their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, HSLF President Michael Markarian wrote:

“One ticket has a clear, compelling record of support for animal protection, while the other has assembled a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

Aside from his usual anti-humane front group funders – the International Dairy Foods Association, the Corn Refiners Association and the Institute for Humane studies, “a think tank headed by activist billionaire Charles Koch” – Berman had the perfect excuse to shake down his corporate donors to pony up big bucks to run a TV ad just before the Super Bowl.

Beside retaliating against the Humane Society for their support of Hillary, Berman needed to undermine the reputation of the Humane Society of the US before they came out swinging against an Orwellian action taken by the USDA just before Super Bowl weekend.

Brian Klippenstein, Executive Director of Protect the Harvest, and a long time enemy of the Humane Society of the US, was tapped to lead Trump’s transition team for the USDA.  Elections have consequences and on Feb 3 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suddenly removed the public’s access to thousands of documents detailing what facilities are keeping animals and “whether those animals are being treated humanely under the Animal Welfare Act.”

If access, transparency and knowledge are important to the welfare of animals, wiping clean the USDA website “…benefits no one, except facilities who have harmed animals and don’t want anyone to know,” The Humane Society of the United States said in a statement.

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the US Humane Society, said in a radio interview with The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen, that the USDA inspects “over 9,000” facilities a year ranging from local zoos, traveling circuses, research laboratories, and dog breeding facilities or so-called “puppy mills.”

According to Science Magazine these USDA reports have led to big animal welfare violators. “Public access to the reports has led to scores of media reports like this article in The Boston Globe in 2012 documenting problems at Harvard University’s primate research facility; the university later closed the trouble-prone New England Primate Research Center.”

While this specific ad may be in response to the attacks on Donald Trump, the feud between Berman and Company and the Humane Society goes farther back than the 2016 elections.  Berman also created a few different front-groups to attack the Humane Society and animal welfare groups over the past decade.

According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, under the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman created:

  • Maternity Pens – Maternity Pens is project that “defends the use of gestation crates used by pork producers and criticizes the arguments of animal rights activists.”
  • Animal Scam – Animal Scam is a project “that denigrates animal rights activists and criticizes their advocacy campaigns.”
  • The Humane Society for Shelter Pets – The Humane Society for Shelter Pets “complements the work of the Center for Consumer Freedom’s HumaneWatch by encouraging the public to donate to local animal shelters instead of the Humane Society of the United States.”
  • PETA Kills Animals – PETA Kills Animals is a project “that smears People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and promotes negative information about the group’s practices.”

Got an issue you want to kill, Berman has a think-tank for you.

How Does Joe Sabia, Peter T Paul, and Berman Connect To New Hampshire?

Now that we understand who Rick Berman is, how his PR firm is paid to create opposing views to major legislative initiatives, and the model they use to create their research, let look at how this connects to the University of New Hampshire and the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.

Dr Joseph Sabia

In September of 2016, the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics quietly hired Joseph Sabia, an economist from California as the McKerley Chair of Health Economics.

This raised a few red flags, as Sabia is one of Berman’s most quoted economists against raising the minimum wage.

As one of Berman’s researchers, Sabia collected over $200,000 dollars in grant money, to say the minimum wage would hurt low-wage workers and ultimately kill jobs.

Berman’s Employment Policies Institute pushed Sabia’s work directly to lobbyist from the National Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, and the National Federation of Independent Business to convince lawmakers to oppose any wage increases.

Sabia’s validity was called into question by a San Diego news agency, Voices of San Diego:

One of [Sabia’s] seven studies for EPI concluded New York’s 2004 minimum-wage hike led to a significant decline in employment for 16-to-29-year-olds without high school diplomas and projected more than 16,000 lost jobs.

That study got particular attention in the Times’ report because University of Delaware economist Saul D. Hoffman reviewed the same data and found it lacking.”

“Mr. Hoffman concluded that the narrow cut of data Mr. Sabia picked was perhaps unintentionally skewed, and once corrected, it would have showed that the 2004 increase in New York State’s minimum wage had no negative impact on employment — the opposite of the conclusion the institute had proclaimed in its news releases.”

Sabia’s hire raises some serious questions:

*   Who exactly hired Sabia?

How open and transparent was the hiring process?

Were other economists even considered for this position?

*   Did Peter T. Paul and his partner, Judith Blake, have any say in the hiring of Sabia? (They are both on the Board of Advisors to the Dean of the Peter T Paul College of Business and Economics.)

After Paul donated $25 million to UNH, the Whittemore School of Business was renamed after Paul, ie. The Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.

Judith Blake, Peter’s partner ran for the University’s Board of Trustees the same year he made the $25 million donation and won election to the Board.

Just this year, Blake donated $8 million dollars with the vast majority to go for scholarships to Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics. (The terms of the scholarships have not been publicly disclosed as of this writing.)

*   What did Paul College Dean, Deborah Merrill-Sands, know about Sabia before hiring him?

Merrill-Sands told the NH Business Review that her focus has been on “business ethics, corporate responsibility and sustainability.”

*   Did Merrill-Sands know about Sabia’s questionable ethics before hiring him and does Sabia’s ethics fit into her model for an academic leader?

The NH Business Review specifically questioned Merrill-Sands about being an academic leader.

Q: How have your international experiences informed your perspective as an academic leader?

A: I’ve spent almost two decades working on issues of rural poverty around the world. When you are exposed to such profound poverty for a long time, you gain a much broader perspective on the vital role of business in society. I learned quickly that government wasn’t enough and saw the impact of the private sector in economic and social development.

As a dean in a business school, I believe it’s important to understand the positive impact of business while not getting swept away by the power of greed. We still need ethics and accountability. 

*   Is there some type of ethics violation by Sabia to be paid by Berman’s anti-minimum wage front group to produce research that benefits Berman’s corporate donors?

We already know that Peter T. Paul has questionable ethics, as he was the creator of “Alt-A” mortgages that many attributed to the financial collapse in 2008.

*    Did his anti-minimum wage research play a roll in his hiring by the Peter T Paul College of Business and Economics?

The Connection To NH Politics

Peter T. Paul was the billionaire backer of Dan Innis the former Dean of the UNH Business School. Innis courted Paul to donate to the school, Innis left the position of Dean to run for U.S Congress in 2014. Peter T Paul created a Super PAC with at least $500,000 to fund Innis’ primary campaign. Despite the large cash support Innis lost his 2014 bid against incumbent Rep Frank Guinta.

Peter T Paul (UNH Photo Services)

In 2016, Peter T. Paul once again helped to fund Innis. This time the Paul Super PAC refocused on state races, just as Innis flipped from running for Congress to making a run for NH State Senate. Innis won and is now pushing Right to Work (for less) and opposing an increase in the NH Minimum Wage.

By far the most important questions are: What is next for the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics? Will the college become a shill for Berman and Company using Sabia’s work to denounce raising the minimum wage in New Hampshire and throughout the country?

Is hiring Sabia and pushing Innis into the NH Senate all part of Peter T Paul’s plan to reshape New Hampshire politics to mirror his own right-wing ideology?

We already know that attempts have been made by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, Arthur Pope, and Betsy DeVos to highjack our political system. They use their unlimited funds to rig the system against working people and to foster their own personal greed.

It is vital that people understand who is pushing these lies that the minimum wage kills jobs and that inhumane treatment of animals should be ignored. It is all connected.

Big Business and billionaires are using people like Berman to deceive you and we must put a stop to it.

We must have answers to these questions. This is our college, funded with our tax dollars, and we demand answers.

Dan Innis Emerges – As A Right-Wing Legislator From A Moderate District.

A person familiar with the man whose data-driven approach animated his work at UNH’s Paul School of Business could have been forgiven for being surprised by the approach taken by the Dan Innis since his election to the New Hampshire Senate in November. HIs approach to chairing the Commerce Committee in a packed Representatives’ Hall provides an example. In the face of data, anecdote, and personal testimonials, Innis seemed deaf to any criticism of controversial right-to-work legislation being heard by the committee. Impatient with testimony from over 100 labor leaders, small businessmen, and economists and eager to defend the endorsements of SB 11 by lobbyists and national right-wing activists, Innis seemed, not only to have his mind made up, but unwilling to listen to any facts that might change it.

Chairman Innis also used his new position to encourage his fellow senators to put any concerns which might have arisen during the four hours of public testimony that they had just heard out of their minds. With gavel in hand, Chairman Innis shut down debate among his colleagues after a mere hour and got the result he wanted. The committee recommended that the full Senate pass the Koch Bros. number one legislative priority for the states. Republican orthodoxy and right-wing ideology had overcome the opposition of a vast majority of attendees at the Senate hearing, with Sen. Innis’s support.

Sen. Innis’s unlikely emergence as a right-wing champion hasn’t been limited to his work as a committee chair. He also put his support behind legislation that allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon by sponsoring SB12. This bill, which was opposed by police chiefs and public safety advocates throughout the state, passed the Senate days after a freshman GOP legislator inadvertently dropped a gun on the floor during a House hearing on the measure.

A glance over the legislation Innis has sponsored this year further demonstrates that the hotelier and academic would NOT serve as a moderate Republican in the mode of Nancy Stiles, his GOP predecessor in District 24, but rather as an ideological, Tea Party legislator. Another example is a bill he is sponsoring entitled SB44, an act prohibiting the state from requiring implementation of Common Core standards. Common Core, a set of educational goals and measurements developed by state and local governments to make comparisons between school results clearer and to designed to measure both student learning and critical thinking skills, has become a favorite target of right-wingers from Glenn Beck (who wrote a sci-fi novel suggesting an enslaved future thanks to Common Core) to legislators and activists who fear that Common Core teaching leads to homosexuality.

These may merely be the efforts of a freshman legislator to court his party’s far-right base, but in a year with a new governor who seems equally susceptible to trends among the national right-wing, his votes have consequences. Seacoast voters would be well advised to ignore the Dan Innis who has carefully cultivated a reputation as a reasonable community leader and pay close attention the Dan Innis who is voting in Concord. They might not recognize him, but they should recognize the impact of the right-wing voting record he is compiling.

NH CD1 Primary — Look Who’s Supporting Guinta

Rep. Frank Guinta

Rep. Frank Guinta

No surprise: in the wake of Rep. Frank Guinta’s agreement to pay a fine for federal election law violations, Dan Innis is expected to run for Congress again.

Party officials are supposed to stay neutral until after primary elections. At least that’s the way it used to be, back when politics was still about parties – and not about money.

But look at Frank Guinta’s first quarter FEC report. Looks like House GOP leadership has already staked out a position in this election.

  • Friends of [House Speaker] John Boehner: $2,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary election, another $2,000 for the 2016 general election – both contributions given on March 20, 2015.
  • The Freedom Project, John Boehner’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary, another $5,000 for the general election – both contributions given on March 20, 2015.
  • [House Majority Leader] Kevin McCarthy for Congress campaign committee: $2,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary election, another $2,000 for the 2016 general election – both contributions given on March 26, 2015.
  • Majority Committee PAC, Kevin McCarthy’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary, another $5,000 for the general election – both contributions given on March 26, 2015.
  • [House Majority Whip Steve] Scalise for Congress campaign committee: $2,000 contribution for the 2016 general election – given on March 27, 2015.
  • Eye of the Tiger PAC, Steve Scalise’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution for the 2016 primary election – given on March 27, 2015.
  • CMR PAC, the Leadership PAC of House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers: $2,500 for the 2016 primary election – given on March 31, 2015.
  • [Republican Policy Committee Chairman] Luke Messer for Congress campaign: $1,000 contribution for the 2016 primary – given on March 31, 2015.
  • Prosperity Action PAC, the Leadership PAC of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: $5,000 for the 2016 primary election – given on March 26, 2015.

It was unanimous. Not a single member of House GOP Leadership failed to make a contribution to Frank Guinta – directly, through their PAC, or both – during the weeks immediately before Guinta agreed to pay his fine to the FEC. Contributions not just for the 2016 general election, but also for the 2016 primary – when Guinta would, presumably, be running against another Republican.

Gotta wonder how former NHGOP Finance Chair Dan Innis feels, about the fact that the entire House GOP Leadership has already contributed to his opponent in the race.

Read an insider’s take on Guinta’s Q1 fundraising here.

Read more about Guinta’s agreement with the FEC here.

The Professional Firefighters Of NH Endorse Dan Innis In The CD1 GOP Primary

PFF - INNISBEDFORD – Today, members of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire gathered to make the recommendation of Dan Innis in the first Congressional District Republican primary. The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire believe that Mr. Innis is the best choice in the first Congressional District Republican primary, and recommend that Republican members vote for him in the State Primary on September 9th. No endorsement has been made in this district’s General Election race in November.

“Dan Innis has made it clear that he values working families in New Hampshire. The professional fire fighters in Bedford, and throughout this district, are hopeful to have this candidate be the nominee in September, because we believe he cares strongly for public safety,” said Jeff Humphrey, President of the Bedford IAFF Local #3639.

“The PFFNH believes that Mr. Innis is the candidate in this primary who understands that fire fighters need support and resources to do our jobs of insuring we keep the public safe. He is the candidate who values public safety. We are proud to endorse Dan Innis in the first Congressional District Republican Primary,” stated David Lang, President of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire.

“Fire fighters risk their lives with every call and we need to make sure that we keep our promises to them” said Dan Innis. “I am proud to have earned the support of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire. In Congress I will work closely with them to make sure that fire fighters have the resources and the support that they need to continue to protect our communities.”

The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, headquartered in Concord, NH represents more than 2,000 active and retired fire fighters and paramedics from 43 locals across the state.  More information is available at www.pffnh.org. Follow us on twitter @pffnh

Granite State: Political Influencers Moving In because we’re ‘Manageable in Size’

Can’t help but see similarities between the Free Staters and Peter T. Paul, the California mortgage guy who seems to be trying to buy a seat in Congress for his friend, Dan Innis.

Here’s how the Free Staters describe why they chose New Hampshire to be their Petri dish:

On October 1, 2003 we announced that our participants had chosen New Hampshire as the future Free State. New Hampshire’s small population factored heavily in the selection process. Our research showed that 20,000 activists can heavily influence states, like New Hampshire, with populations of less than 1.5 million and our early movers report that even a few hundred can make a significant difference.

And here’s Peter Paul, explaining to the NH Business Review why he is getting into New Hampshire politics:

As for his Super PAC, Paul said he has never been involved politically before. “I prefer to watch.” So when he “dipped his toe” in the political waters at the end of January by setting up the NH Priorities PAC, a $500,000 Super PAC, it was primarily to help Innis… The PAC is also considering donating to like-minded candidates in more local races, such as the state Senate. “I like New Hampshire,” Paul said. “Because it is more manageable in size.”

So far, Paul’s PAC has reportedly spent more money than Innis’ actual campaign has – $226K spent by the PAC, compared to $187K spent by the campaign. The Washington Post calls it a “Must-have accessory for House candidates in 2014: The personalized super PAC.” So let’s follow that money. Where did it come from?

  • “Where did Peter T. Paul get his money? The man whose name adorns the UNH business school is a financier who helped create securitized low-doc loans.” Read the NH Business Review story here.
  • Read the NH Gazette story “Vulture Capitalism Comes Home to Roost” here.

“Small population.” “More manageable in size.”

That’s what they think about New Hampshire. That’s why they’re here.

Really?

 

 

Hat-Tip to Arnie Arnesen for writing the Op-Ed on Peter Paul. 

For more on the Free State Project read Matt Murray’s editorial in the Nashua Telegraph or the Concord Monitor

The Party Of “NO” Continues With Dan Innis

GOP Elephant (FLICKR DonkeyHotey)

GOP Elephant (FLICKR DonkeyHotey)

It is becoming increasingly clear that the New Hampshire Republican Party is lost. They keep recycling the same broken rhetoric and failed policies.

Take, for example, Dan Innis who spoke to the Union Leader this week.

In an effort to distance himself from his opponents, mainly former Congressman Frank Guinta, he touted his business experience and the fact that he has never run for office before.

“People I know and respect have told me this is a good thing for me to do because of my background and experience, and the fact that I haven’t been a politician,” Innis said.

I respect the outsider approach, but if you have no experience in politics why would anyone support you? Would you hire a plumber who has never sweat pipes, or vented a sewer line? I think a business owner would know that.

Innis believes his success as a business owner and administrator of a large institution would play well in the general election.”

Secondly, I am of the opinion that running a profitable business does not make someone a good person to lead government. The government is not a business; government agencies are not trying to make a profit. The function of government is to provide services to the community – not to return a profit to stockholders. Government helps people; it provides roads and bridges to facilitate commerce; it ensures public safety; it protects the environment, which protects our children and our tourism industries. Government doesn’t make widgets, and it’s not supposed to be a profit-making enterprise.

Other than those two things, Dan Innis is just like CREW’s most corrupt politician, Frank Guinta.

“His positions on issues like Obamacare, the economy, deficits, taxes, regulation and immigration are consistent with the Republican Party platform. He would vote to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, reduce regulation, and bar any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

The party of “No” continues:

  • No on Obamacare (even though it is working, and saving people lots of money)
  • No roadmap to citizenship (sorry, you 11,000,000 people: your decades of waiting were for nothing, we hope your employers don’t mind)
  • No new taxes, aka “cut taxes” (its ok, those poor kids don’t need to eat)
  • Cut regulations (so my friends the Koch brothers can pollute as much as they want – then we can be just like China)

Reading his statements makes me believe that Innis is in favor of the “Sequester,” because it forced Congress to take the “hard votes.”

“I like the idea of a five- to 10-year plan that sits on top of the annual budget process and forces Congress’ hand. Congress would have to hit the targets that are laid out.”

The blueprint would function much like the so-called “sequestration” that led to the fiscal cliff budget cuts. “Sequestration was a way that Congress could hide and not take hard votes on the cuts,” he said.

So far it looks like the NH GOP is offering up

  • an inexperienced unknown, who can only say “NO” and
  • Frank Guinta, CREW’s most corrupt Politian.

Neither of these choices look at all appealing.

Shea-Porter to Guinta and Innis: Match Scott Brown’s Standard and Take The People’s Pledge

Image by MARCN CC on Flickr

Image by MARCN CC on Flickr

MANCHESTER, NH – Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) has challenged Republican candidates Frank Guinta and Dan Innis to live up to the standard once set by Scott Brown in Massachusetts and agree to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.

In a letter sent to former Congressman Guinta and Mr. Innis, Shea-Porter urges them to join with her to limit third-party spending in New Hampshire, returning politics to the place it belongs — in the hands of New Hampshire citizens.

“New Hampshire has always been fertile soil for democracy, but third-party groups are threatening to drown out the voices of average citizens as they flood our airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising,” Shea-Porter wrote to Guinta and Innis. “I’m asking you to live up to Scott Brown’s standard, even if he abandoned it, and sign the People’s Pledge to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.”

In 2012, Shea-Porter called on Frank Guinta to denounce SuperPAC ads, but he refused. In the 2014 election cycle, third-party groups have already spent more than $1.8 million on negative advertising in New Hampshire, and they’ve pledged to spend more. Despite calls from Public Citizen and Common Cause, Scott Brown has so far refused to sign the People’s Pledge.

Shea-Porter has always practiced campaign finance reform. She does not accept money from Corporate PACs or DC lobbyists. In January, she joined NH Rebellion for the Manchester to Bedford part of the group’s walk across New Hampshire for campaign finance reform. The march was inspired by New Hampshire’s Doris Haddock (“Granny D”), who famously walked across the country in 1999 with a simple sign on her chest: “Campaign Finance Reform.”

Below is a copy of the letter sent to both Mr. Guinta and Mr. Innis who have a primary on September 9th to determine who will be the Republican Party’s candidate in November.

+++

April 8, 2014

Mr. Frank Guinta
PO Box 877
Manchester, NH 03105

Mr. Daniel Innis
PO Box 667
Manchester, NH 03105

Dear NH-01 Republican Candidate Mr. Guinta and NH-01 Republican Candidate Mr. Innis,

New Hampshire has always been fertile soil for democracy, but third-party groups are threatening to drown out the voices of average citizens as they flood our airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising. I’m asking you to live up to Scott Brown’s standard, even if he abandoned it, and sign the People’s Pledge to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.

Third-party groups have already spent more than $1.8 million on negative advertising in New Hampshire this cycle, and they’ve pledged to spend more. We know that New Hampshire voters hate these ads, and by working together, we can dramatically reduce them. The time to act is now.

Sign the agreement with me by next week and we will:

 

  • Immediately send out a joint press release that third-party money is not welcome in NH-01
  • Jointly hold a press conference to denounce any third-party that use the airwaves or any form of media ads to attack or support any of us
  • Jointly sign a public statement to the offending third-party that it stop running the ads immediately

 

New Hampshire politics is about knocking on doors, shaking hands, and visiting countless communities. It’s not about who can buy an election by spending millions of dollars on negative ads.

Together, we can return politics to the place it belongs, in the hands of New Hampshire citizens. I hope you’ll join me in doing what’s right for our state and our democracy.

Sincerely,

Carol Shea-Porter

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,331 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement