Thursday • April 23 • 2026
Vol.XVIII • No.XVII
Manchester, N.H.
It is unusual for a Democrat or uniparty stooge to say the quiet part out loud, but this isn’t new to Massachusetts. David Ismay, Charlie Baker’s undersecretary for Climate change (can’t be much of a ‘republican’ Gov. if you have one of those – and he wasn’t), said openly that they need to put the screws to everyone in the name of climate change.
He didn’t survive the heat (ironically, given his gig). Will this Masshole do the same?
It is Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt.
Using frank language rarely heard on Beacon Hill, Tibbits-Nutt weighed in on a series of major policy issues. She talked about how she would raise more money for transportation, with one option being the installation of toll gantries at the state’s borders with neighboring states. She promised to do more to address traffic fatalities by urging law enforcement to issue more speeding citations. And she said she would not support a layover facility for commuter rail trains as part of the I-90 Allston multimodal project, handing neighborhood activists a major victory.
Toll booths at the border is a great idea. One more reason not to go to Massachusetts. It’ll piss off all the commuters who live in New Hampshire but work in the Bay State, but that could be good for New Hampshire too. Incentivize working here instead. They’ll save on gas, tolls, speed trap tickets, T rate hikes (if you are brave enough to take the T). In other words, they need more money, and there’s nothing they are not willing to do you to get it.
“This [task force] is actually different because we’re not censoring it,” she said. “I’m going to talk about tolling. I’m going to talk about charging TNCs [transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft] more. I’m going to talk about potentially charging more for package deliveries, charging more for payroll tax — basically going after everybody who has money. And when I’m talking tolling, I’m talking at the borders. I’m not talking within Massachusetts.”
She added: “We’re going after all the people who should be giving us money to make our transportation better and our communities better.”
As if the Government could do any such thing. There’s no evidence of it. None. Higher taxes to pad school budgets have produced dumber kids. Milking trillions from Americans in the name of Climate change has only made electricity more expensive and less reliable (and the weather is still the same). The police budget has nothing to do with public safety. Voting for Joe Biden created division (inflation, joblessness, war) and not the promised unity. Nor has any sum of your dollars yet managed to solve transportation infrastructure issues. They spend it all, and things stay the same or get worse.
The only community that benefits is the one that pays her nearly 200k/ year salary. Those in and around ‘The Government get fatter and happier, protecting the politicians who keep adding more parasites to feed on the host (which is you).
TruthMonica Tibbits-Nutt is using the pretension that she’s being brave when she says, “she will not spend any time making decisions with the goal of hanging on to her job”—which is an excuse to hide decades of poor management, which can only ever be resolved with more of your money.
And lucky you, thanks to inflation and the Biden Economy, they are going to need a lot more from you to do so much less.
Update: After this post was written and scheduled, contrary to Tibbits-Nutt’s contention that she had her back, Governor Maura Healy did not. Not exaclty.
(Boston Globe) Governor Maura Healey, appearing on WBUR’s Radio Boston, called state Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt’s recent comments about imposing tolls for drivers crossing into Massachusetts “a very poor choice of words.”
“It’s not how we do things,” Healey told Radio Boston host Tiziana Dearing on Tuesday. “It’s not how we operate.”
I didn’t click through to the full article, but “poor choice of words” isn’t a categorical no to border tolls, as Healey hints at a need for nuance. That’s not how we do things? Okay, so maybe border tolls are at the bottom of the list, but where’d Tibbits-Nutt-job get the idea if they didn’t come up at some point?
It’s on the list.
Be great if someone leaked that to the press.
The post Massachusetts Is “Going After Everybody Who Has Money.” appeared first on Granite Grok.
From the Editor: We’d like to welcome the Conservatarain Exchange and Liberty Block NH to Grok Podcasts!
Disney has won its battle in a proxy way to remain woke against outsiders; liberals keep fighting; conservatives often accept defeat as final; do establishment leaders in D.C. succumb to more than just peer pressure? threats? should republicans engage in issues such as “income equality”—turn the issue against liberal jurisdictions? Attacks on free speech in Scotland, Poland; if Americans don’t fight for free speech the “parchment guarantees” will never suffice; winner take all of electors vs. apportioning them by district (current situation in Nebraska); should we care if blue states ignore SCOTUS?
Trump should join Abbott of Texas in ignoring SCOTUS on the “invasion” issue; does an oath to support the constitution require support of all SCOTUS decisions? Attorneys afraid of taking suits on the right and/or being disbarred like Eastman; why aren’t banks treated legally as common carriers? Biden’s Easter transgender visibility proclamation? Is government our religion nowadays?
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u359331"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");
Rumble("play", {"video":"v4l5qz3","div":"rumble_v4l5qz3"});
The post The Conservatarian Exchange: Episode 200 appeared first on Granite Grok.
The presidential campaign of 2008 marked a turning point in America.
Millions of voters were electrified by the prospect of the first African-American president. Even one of Barack Obama’s opposing candidates seemed mesmerized by the moment: “I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
I mean, that’s a story-book, man.” But then, Joe Biden has always viewed everything in terms of race.
Yes, the election of America’s first black president was a watershed moment. Some believe it took too long to get there, but it was an inevitability.
There was another watershed moment, though, that most voters failed to notice. It was the first time that Americans elected a president who, throughout his life, had been steeped in socialist, Communist, and anti-American ideologies – a man whose value system clearly contradicted traditional American values. Voters chose to ignore Obama’s background and the people who helped mold his values – people like Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Jeremaih Wright. Those anti-American diatribes by Jeremaih Wright? No matter.
And when that self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” vowed to fundamentally transform the country that most Americans cherished, they didn’t seem to care.
With the country behind him, Barack Obama succeeded in transforming our country in ways no one could have imagined.
Under Obama’s administration, America became more divided, especially along racial lines. And Americans lost some of their national pride. Prominent sports figures began disparaging our flag and our national anthem. Disdain for police agencies started growing. Many in our country began to reject our capitalist system and the idea of American exceptionalism while embracing socialist concepts like redistribution of wealth.
But that’s ancient history.
Now, more than seven years after Obama left office, the man who served as his vice president wants a second term in the White House and an opportunity to finish their disastrous transformation of America.
During his 2019 campaign, Joe Biden was touted as a moderate candidate with traditional American values, an elder statesman committed to unifying the country. He’s proven himself to be anything but.
Who knows why Biden took such a radical left turn after his election? Many believe that he’s doing China’s bidding, thoroughly compromised by the millions of dollars the CCP quietly paid his family. Others suggest that he’s nothing more than a figurehead, a marionette controlled by radical leftist puppeteers – among them, perhaps Barack Obama himself.
Polls confirm that Biden is an unpopular president. He’s widely perceived as weak, addled, incompetent, and corrupt. Surveys consistently show that his policies are taking our country in the wrong direction.
Yet paradoxically, in a head-to-head matchup with Donald Trump, other data suggest that Biden stands a fair chance of reelection in November. That’s mostly because the propaganda machine of the Democrat Party and the liberal news media managed to convince so many Americans that Donald Trump poses a genuine “threat to our Democracy,” a threat to our very survival. Incredibly enough, they’ve come to believe that Trump’s “America first” agenda is somehow un-American.
Consequently, many voters now believe that even Joe Biden is a better alternative.
Biden pontificates about fighting for the “soul of the nation.” But there was nothing wrong with America’s soul before he and Obama began tampering with it. National pride – patriotism – wasn’t derided. It was seen as the glue that holds this nation, any nation, together. It was once an unassailable American value.
Other values that were part of America’s soul included freedom, equality, the right to privacy, individualism, personal responsibility, personal property rights, and a competitive spirit. Topping the list was a fair justice system. The Biden Administration has been systematically extinguishing them all.
America also once had a conscience – an uncompromising sense of right and wrong. Today they’re replacing that conscience with contrived radical concepts like social justice, CRT, DEI, and gender-affirming care. They’re doing it in defiance of our Constitution, using subterfuge and deceit.
In fact, given his many abuses of power, Biden would certainly have been impeached and removed from office by now, were it not for the blind support of congressional Democrats, his loyal apparatchiks.
That leaves it to the voters. Will they continue to blindly follow a path they know leads to self-destruction? Or will they finally say “enough”?
For the greatest threat to the Biden Administration is not Donald Trump. It’s an informed electorate, endowed with common sense and the ability to think independently.
Yes, the economy, immigration, the border, abortion, and national security are all important issues in this election. But in November, voters will have to decide who we are as a nation. They will decide whether to preserve the soul of America or extinguish it forever.
The post Last Chance to Save the Soul of the Nation appeared first on Granite Grok.
Democrats in the State House were parading around this week with a banner insisting, “If you make a mess, you clean it up!” Yeah! Big talk! They think this should apply to oil companies regarding climate change (another story I’ll get to soon), but apply that message to themselves regarding the colossal property tax tsunami of a mess they’ve made for us. Well, not so much.
As far as property tax relief for Vermonters goes, the banner reads, “If you make a mess, create a ‘task force’ of usual suspects to ‘look into it’, keep the money flowing to your political cronies, and hope the voters have short memories and deep pockets.” Hey, it’s worked in the past! But I’m getting the feeling it’s not going to work as well this time. They’ve been successfully boiling the frog (us) for a long time but got greedy, turned up the heat too fast, and the taxpayers are ready to jump out of the pot.
Vermonters worried we are about to be taxed out of our homes come July are now being told not to expect any sort of relief for at least three years while they study the issue. News flash: we can’t afford the bill this year! Fix your mess NOW.
Vermont’s current property tax explosion/crisis is driven by the fact that we spend more money per public school student than almost every other state in the Union by a long shot. After this year’s spending spree, we might just be number one. The official “weighted student average” is $23,299, but if you divide the total $2.5 billion education budget by the 80,000 pre-k to 12 kids in the system, the number is over $30,000.
This latest $200 million budget gap that is the reason for the 20 percent year-over-year average property tax (and/or other taxes) increase is primarily the result of overspending on:
What’s the solution? Here’s my proposal:
Short term, cap individuals’ property tax increases to a level no greater than inflation (currently 3.5%). If what that generates plus the other revenue streams to the Education fund (100% of the sales & use tax, 25% of the rooms & meals tax, lottery, etc.) doesn’t cover the cost of school budgets, the delta should be made up through cuts to other programs – unfunded education mandates such as the $30 million free meals programs or cuts to general fund programs with the revenue shifted to education. I’d suggest starting with all those programs that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize EV purchases, solar panel installations, etc. Those are luxury programs, not basic government services.
No new taxes! We are taxed enough already, and taking even more of our money just out of different pockets – as the Democrats are doing — is not tax relief. It’s making the mess that much bigger.
Long term, restructure the system to first establish an education budget amount and a tax rate Vermonters can afford, and then figure out how to spend that amount in the most efficient and cost-effective way to achieve superior student outcomes. Every other state in the Union, bar one, has figured out how to spend less on education than we do, and a lot of them are getting better student outcomes to boot. Every independent school in Vermont operates this way, and they get better results for less money. How about we learn from them instead of trying to shut them down?
A big reason we are in this mess is because our lawmakers created a public education financing system in which we throw everything the special interests say they want into the shopping cart and then tell the taxpayers to pay for whatever the cash register rings up. This dynamic has to end. Unfortunately, it is the dynamic that Democrats in Montpelier, under the influence of the VTNEA, Superintendents Association, and Principals’ Association, are doubling down on.
The multi-year study process they are opting for in lieu of meaningful reform is not being set up to control costs and provide property tax relief. It is going to “figure out the policy, vision and the system of where we are going and then how do we fund it….” That’s no different from what we are doing now. It’s the problem. It’s the reason for the mess. Clean it up.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.
The post Democrat Supermajority Has No Interest in Solving the Property Tax Mess They Made appeared first on Granite Grok.
I just thought of something: how about testing when starting school? Then Some kids may start in 1st grade and some may start in 2nd grade or even third. Then every year they take their “Proficiency Test” as long as they test to the next grade off they go, if not they get held back. If they test ahead of their class again, they could skip a grade again if the parents agree.
And to be honest, the grade levels do not have to be too difficult, just a wide field for each grade as a general test of that average grade level. I believe a lot of children would end up skipping grades, saving funding for everyone.
We want to thank Ken Goodall for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
If a student starts getting held back, then the school would work with the parents for tutoring, or if the student has medical or mental issues, then they could be set to “Special Needs,” and each county could have one school set as “Special Needs.”
I see a lot of issues with this for sure, but I believe it could work. With the battle going on with public, charter, Religious, and private schools, this could be a viable option.
Every Change Starts With The First Step, and we need to take the first step before it is too late.
The post Food For Thought on Schooling appeared first on Granite Grok.
If you’ve driven through any part of Goffstown or Pinardville, you may have seen the “Hate has no home in Goffstown” signs. At first glance, they seem well-intentioned and a wonderful idea. But upon further investigation, they are actually breeding much hate and division within the community.
The signs were originally designed after a neo-Nazi group from outside the community placed literature in a few residents’ driveways. It appeared to be completely random and an act that every member of the Goffstown community condemned.
The extreme leftists in our town, who never let a virtue-signaling opportunity pass them by, designed these signs immediately and sold them to whoever wanted to jump into the narrative that our town now has a hate problem because of this random act.
If hate truly has no home in Goffstown, then why was a complaint made to the zoning board after a fiscally conservative resident spoke up and presented a tax cap at the town’s deliberative session? Immediately following that meeting, an extreme leftist filed a complaint to the zoning board about the conservative resident’s chickens and coop (that have been in place for five years with no issues) and that resident is now having to go through the arduous and tedious process of fighting with the town for a variance.
We want to thank Shanun Carey for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Some of the folks with a “no hate sign” in their yard were the first to announce that any parent or resident who stood up at a School Board meeting against inappropriate sexual materials on a Middle School library whiteboard should be put on a ‘public town wall of shame.’
Recently a parent spoke up at another School Board meeting about the fact that her son was not drinking water all day to avoid using the boys’ bathroom. He was doing this because he felt uncomfortable that a young girl, who now identifies as a boy, was now using the same boys’ school bathroom. Immediately following the meeting a complaint was made to that boy’s parent’s place of employment.
44 people in our town signed a petition for a tax cap warrant article. Once the extreme leftists got a hold of that information, all 44 of those names and their addresses were released on a Facebook group with the intent to get people to harass and shame those specific residents.
Two conservatives recently ran for Library Board of Trustees in our local election. This really bothered and triggered another extreme leftist, who happens to be our Select Board Vice Chair’s wife, and she requested the candidates’ actual library cards from the library. After receiving them from the Library Director, she proceeded to display them (including their patron codes) publicly online in order to intimidate and call them out.
Doesn’t seem very kind, caring or inclusive to me. It sounds more like when you don’t fall in line, you will publicly pay the price.
The most recent incident of the ‘no hate’ movement in Goffstown happened when a local veteran-owned business received a visit from a member of the local LGBTQ+ group. This person entered the business during working hours to demand (in front of customers) that the business owner hang an LGBTQ+ flag and stickers in his shop window during the month of June (Pride month). When the business owner politely declined (not wanting to be political and cause any discomfort to the many different views and beliefs of his wide range of customers), he was then called hostile and berated as being part of the problem in our town. She said that thanks to him, she and her wife are unable to walk the streets of Goffstown safely. Oh, those vicious Goffstown streets. It’s a tough town to grow up in. With our beautiful town square, the resident-only Glen Lake, beautiful rock water features, friendly waves from local shop owners, drivers stopping so you can cross the street, even when you’re not on the crosswalk… it’s a wonder any of us survive here.
Hate has no home in Goffstown unless you disagree with the vocal minority. Then hate is acceptable and even encouraged.
Someone make it make sense.
The post Does Hate Really Have No Home in Goffstown? appeared first on Granite Grok.
As the 2024 election season gets underway in earnest (although it has actually been going on for quite some time already), it is probably useful to look behind the curtain of (a) political “consultants” and (b) political contributions through organized groups.
It seems to have become fairly standard and expected for political candidates in our state to hire a so-called political consultant, supposedly to assist in their campaigns. Some holding themselves out as political consultants are based in our state, while others may be based in Washington as if being based in Washington is some type of badge of honor when clearly it is not.
The usual arrangement with a political consultant typically takes the form of a written contract that is supposed to spell out the duties of the consultant as well as how the consultant is to be paid. The typical payment arrangement is for a monthly payment during the campaign, often with bonuses available if the candidate prevails in the primary and another in the general election.
Further, many consultant arrangements provide for the consultant to handle the candidate’s appearances, advertising, and handouts such as brochures, palm cards, signs, and the like. But there is often an insidious factor involved in which the consultant is able to mark up the charges from outside vendors and/or receive commissions from those vendors, all of which ends up coming out of the campaign coffers.
Does it really make sense to agree to such arrangements when there are vendors, some based in NH, such as Spectrum from Manchester, who can provide all printed materials, mailings, and signs without payment of commissions or markups? Many of those services come with sound political advice without extra charge.
Finally, it is amusing to read campaign news releases announcing that a particular political consultant has been hired for a campaign, especially when examining the history of campaigns in which the consultant has been previously engaged. Some of them have a long and well-known history of being the consultant for campaign after campaign in which the candidate lost, as if to say, in effect, that my history of handling many losing campaigns in the past makes me especially qualified to handle another losing campaign now.
The most successful campaigns seem to be ones in which the candidate is very hands-on without regard, resorting to so-called consultants who seem to exist simply to extract money from campaign coffers without producing wins.
That being said, because of the size of our state and with very limited conservative media outlets, the more successful larger races (i.e. other than for state rep) that are inherently expensive often end up relying on larger campaign contributions from out-of-state donors and groups, and if a so-called consultant can actually produce such contributions in a meaningful way, perhaps they might actually be worth something.
And so now, we turn to campaign contributions.
A famous Dem politician once reportedly said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Unfortunately, how true!
Although state representative campaigns can be run effectively without huge expenditures, once the political stage moves into larger districts or statewide, whether for the state senate, the exec council, the governor, and our federal senators and reps, the required campaign expenses increase dramatically.
Anyone reading this has probably been solicited for campaign contributions by a variety of sources: some directly by the candidate campaigns and others by groups that seek to “bundle” the contributions and allocate them to who-knows-whom.
If you make a contribution directly to the campaign of a candidate you favor, you will have a pretty good idea of where your money is going. But if you contribute to a group, although the group may claim to be supportive of candidates you support, you lose effective control of where your money ends up.
And to further the problem, many of the groups soliciting contributions incur significant administrative expenses for staff, as well as, in some cases, payment of “commissions” to officials of the group who purportedly bring in contributions. It is not unusual to see at least 10% of a contribution go to payment of such a commission.
But some groups, including some political action committees, are run entirely by volunteers without any paid administrative staff.
So, if you are considering making a political contribution, keep in mind that your contribution will be most effective if you contribute directly to the campaign of your chosen candidate. However, if you choose to contribute to a group, before you make that contribution, inquire as to whether the group pays commissions to anyone and whether it manages to keep its administrative expenses very low.
The post Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain! appeared first on Granite Grok.
G.E.T. R.E.A.L. is a solemn promise and a positive path forward for our state by Vermont Republicans focused on improving the quality of life of our people. It is a prescription of policy proposals, and this is the fourth in a series of essays explaining the program.
Editors Note: While focused on Vermont, the G.E.T. R.E.A.L. agenda sets a standard I think could/should be duplicated in New Hampshire and – well, everywhere—a public Republican Party promise/platform itemizing its priorities ‘Contract with America’ Style.
Given the normal weather patterns in Vermont with all the freezing and thawing and the need for plenty of plowing, maintaining safe and comfortable roads and bridges is always going to be a challenge. Even more so if the trends of warmer, wetter winters and springs continue to bring us multiple mud seasons and more frequent floods. So, we really need to focus all of our transportation fund dollars on fixing and maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
While in years past, legislatures had done a good job of ending policies that robbed the Transportation Fund to pay for other projects, recently, we have seen a return to bad habits in this arena, particularly where taking out taxpayer money to subsidize electric vehicle purchases is concerned. For example, the current version of the Transportation Bill under debate right now contains $12 million in subsidies for EV incentives and in-home charging equipment.
First of all, that’s $12 million that’s not going to pave roads, fill potholes, expand culverts, or renovate bridges – all things we need to be doing more of, not less. In fact, the average age of Vermont’s bridges is 59 years, compared to the national average of 44 years. 75 of our bridges are classified as “structurally deficient,” up from 68 as recently as 2019, and, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, nearly a quarter of a million vehicles pass over just the twenty-five most traveled of those structurally deficient bridges every day. This should be a priority for transportation funds.
However, this sense of urgency is not shared by the supermajority controlling the purse strings in Montpelier today. In 2023, Governor Scott earmarked in his budget $9 million in general fund surplus money that could have been used to draw down triple that amount in federal matching funds for road repair. Democrats chose to spend that money elsewhere.
But even without these critical maintenance needs, it is highly questionable that it is the proper role of government to force some Vermonters to pay for the vehicle choices of other Vermonters, especially when those subsidies tend to flow regressively up the income ladder from lower-earning workers to upper-income car buyers. These “wealthfare” programs need to end.
Additionally, the state using tax dollars to subsidize more Vermonters’ choice to drive electric vehicles has an additional negative impact on fuel tax and, therefore, Transportation Fund revenues. Under the current system, if you’re not buying gas to use the roads, you’re not paying to help maintain them. One solution is to charge EV owners with a “road use surcharge” when they register, which is an idea under consideration. However, the Democrat leadership, under the influence of environmental lobbyists is insisting that money go not to road maintenance but to, you guessed it, more taxpayer-funded EV subsidies.
Think about this for a minute. The supermajority wants to pay people a subsidy to buy an electric vehicle, then hit those same people with a surcharge on that same electric vehicle in order to fund somebody else’s electric vehicle subsidy, which will also be penalized with a surcharge. That’s just ridiculous. More ridiculous is that they’re doing this while not sufficiently funding the maintenance of the roads that all of our vehicles need to drive on!
It’s yet another example of policy being driven by blind ideology and special interest politics at the expense of common sense and providing basic public services. This is exactly the kind of mindset we need to GET REAL about replacing in Montpelier!
Also slipped into this year’s Transportation Bill is a provision to move toward implementing a Clean Transportation Standard. This is the motor fuel companion to the home heating Clean Heat Standard, which is estimated to add 70 cents or more to every gallon of oil, propane, natural gas, and kerosene. Yes, the supermajority wants this same scale of carbon tax applied to gasoline and diesel. An additional dollar tax on a gallon of gas? We say, Get Real!
If this gas and diesel carbon tax ultimately passes (the only way to stop it is to Vote Republican in November) and is a crucial component of the supermajorities Global Warming Solutions Act law passed in 2020, again, the revenue would not be used for road maintenance but rather pet global warming projects. This would decrease fuel tax capacity for transportation infrastructure maintenance, likely requiring tax increases elsewhere to fill the gap.
The government is supposed to provide some basic, universal services, and maintaining the state’s roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure is one of them. Elect Republicans this November, and we’ll GET REAL about fixing our roads and bridges.
Bill Huff is the Orange County GOP Chair – on behalf of all GOP County Chairs
G: Global Warming Solutions Act Reform
E: Education Reform
The post G.E.T. R.E.A.L! T: Transportation Infrastructure (AKA Fix the Roads!) appeared first on Granite Grok.
