The Associated Press reports 34% of us support his handling of the economy. Voters’ assessment of the economy is dismal. Yet, Biden continues to say and do the same things. An NBC poll says 74% of us think America is on the wrong track. So, what’s going on?

The strategy is familiar. Biden is using rhetoric as a substitute for performance; it is the Leftist way. If voters dislike what you are selling, don’t change the product.  Market it differently.  Call it Bidenomics and the battle of the “trickle-down” straw man.

His economic message isn’t new.  His arguments have been around for years. The words have no effect. You see, the cleverest slogan doesn’t disguise reality.  Mr. Biden’s claim is: Wages have been growing at a rapid clip on my watch.  That is true but completely wrong… Here’s why.

Mr. Biden is presiding over a decline in real average hourly earnings. What that means is, yes, wages are going up. The problem is inflation is up more. The result is: His policies are responsible for the loss of purchasing power. He made us all poorer. We can buy less with our higher wages; 3.6% less on his watch.

The worst inflation in 40 years came from gross overspending. It is compounded by Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act which flooded a recovering economy with $2 trillion of additional stimulus. It came in addition to trillions spent the previous year. The spending splurge, combined with ending energy independence plus restrictive trade policies, generated inflation.

Mr. Biden claims American billionaires are not paying their fair share.  To be clear, he does not describe what share exactly is a fair share. So let’s ask a couple of questions: Would that mean we all pay the same amount?  Isn’t that what equity demands; equality of outcome?   Would it mean we pay the same percentage?  Does the responsibility to pay depend only on the ability to pay?  If that’s true, where does it lead?

The average billionaire’s tax rate is 8%, according to Mr. Biden. How would he have acquired that information?  Do you want your tax return information shared with your neighbors?  Mr. Biden says no billionaire should pay a lower rate than a school teacher, fireman or policeman.   Why are all his examples, public employees?

The implication of Mr. Biden’s statement is the average American is paying far more than 8%. But is that true? No, no, it is not.

According to IRS data the top 1% of taxpayers pay an average effective income tax rate of 25%.  Those people earning more than $60 million/year pay an average tax rate of about 22.9% in federal taxes. Again that’s according to the IRS. You can check the numbers at Politifact.

Now looking at teachers, firemen, and police, let’s assume this is a proxy for those making less than $100 thousand/year. There, we find those people pay an effective federal tax rate between zero and 15%.  Mr. Biden is simply wrong in his claim, and he’s hoping he can lie and you will not have done your homework.

Mr. Biden cherry-picks positive data points to brag about instead of recognizing policy failure and changing policy.  There are some positive indicators; there always are.  For example, the unemployment rate stands at 3.7%.   Also, there is an uptick in factory construction. The flip side of the coin is: Government subsidy is almost 100% responsible for that activity.  It is not actual innate growth from the demand in the private sector.

He just keeps hoping the Federal Reserve will fix inflation. He seems like a deer in the headlights.  He’s frozen in place as oblivion hurtles toward America.

Mr. Biden also speaks about the deficit. He says the deficit went up every year under Trump, and it has gone down under him. Again Mr. Biden is correct but completely wrong. Here’s why. America has not balanced its budget in more than 20 years, since 2001, actually. During the pandemic, we did some big-time bipartisan spending. Since the Plandemic years, we have spent too much but less successively.

We are still engaging in a serious and unnecessary amount of deficit spending.  The difference in the rate of deficit spending is what Mr. Biden would claim credit for. The CBO has released a report saying the deficit reduction claims are not material. Over the next 25 year, our national debt is going to climb from 91% of GDP to 181% of GDP.

Bloomberg News reports such high and rising debt will slow economic growth, push up interest rates and payments to foreign debt holders, and pose significant economic risks to the fiscal and economic outlook of America.

Nobody in the District of Columbia should get credit for much of anything except irresponsible behavior.  We are nationally behaving like Hunter Biden. A lot must go right for Bidenomics to succeed. The Fed must avoid the long-predicted recession. Higher interest rates might continue to trigger bank failures. The Fed’s track record is not encouraging.  Inflation has been persistent.

Assuming economic success, other issues will step forward.  Biden’s fitness for office is in doubt.   There are reasonable concerns over the 80-year-old president’s physical and mental capacity.  People his age only move in only one direction.

If you worry about Biden’s health and capacity, then you are likely terrified at the prospect of Kamala Harris. She inherits the office of president should something happen to Biden.  She’s the most unpopular vice president in history. Nothing makes people feel good about Harris.

Then there’s the issue of corruption.  IRS whistleblowers have revealed the schemes of the Biden family. There are Hunter’s escapades. There is Joe’s entanglement in Hunter’s scandals. There is the House of Representatives seeking to uncover the details of the Biden family operations.

The precariousness of Biden’s political position comes from the decline in the American standard of living. It is not helped by his obvious health and diminished capacity issues. It is magnified by the inept and obvious corruption. The once generally accepted genial grandpa issuing reassuring platitudes from his Delaware basement is gone. That myth has been replaced by the cranky demented octogenarian with a troubled relationship with the truth.

The nation is on autopilot.  We are moving toward a general election.  Will the result again be determined by narrow outcomes in three or four states?  The election may depend on the MAGA/anti-MAGA struggle.  How are the parties approaching the election?   Which side are you on?

The post Mr. Biden Knows He’s Vulnerable appeared first on Granite Grok.

Recap: I had put in a Right To Know to DCYF Specialist Amy Fortin for their Investigative Manual that is supposed to outline how DCYF Field Workers are to handle their cases. She at first blew me off by not responding within the first five business days after receipt of the Right To Know that demanding a copy for inspection.

When I reminded her that she was overdue, she responded that her lawyer’s advice to was to tell me it was a public document and that it could be found on the Internet.

In other words, go pound sand. Silly person.  I responded with, “RSA 91-A has Clauses 7 & 8 has penalties – would you like to find out how?” and that’s when DHHS Chief Legal John Martin showed up and delivered the Responsive Record demanded of Fortin.

But that got me thinking – what was that path from me to her through to him?  So I put in a Right To Know to find out (as you can tell, an RTK is the most powerful tool a citizen can employ in keeping our Government in check and to account) to him as he had said, in effect, “ask me anything.” I made it clear that I was NOT asking to see any “privileged client/lawyer communications” as outlined in the Right To Know law as I knew and specified in my RTK that such were unwanted and are exempt from RTKs. Just the communication pathway.  What I received from him didn’t make the grade (reformatted, emphasis mine):

—— Original Message ——
From “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/30/2023 1:31:08 PM
Subject RSA 91-A Right to Know Request

Good afternoon Mr. Murphy.  I am responding to your Right to Know request pursuant to which you requested any internal e-mails relative to your initial Right to know request seeking a DCYF protocol.  At this point I have reviewed all of the e-mails beginning with your initial request for the protocol leading up to my e-mail to you on June 9, 2023, when I provided you with two DCYF protocols.

Every internal E-Mail was either sent to a State attorney or by a State attorney for the purposes of legal consultation.  As a consequence, these e-mails fall under the attorney/client privilege and are exempt from disclosure under RSA 91-A:5,IV.  For this reason, there are no public records that are responsive to your request.  That being said, I hope you have a good weekend and a nice 4 th of July.

John B. Martin, Deputy Chief Legal Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services

Office of Legal and Regulatory Services

Bureau of General Counsel
129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301

His response specifically leaned in on what I specifically DIDN’T want to see, attorney/client privilege, as the reason not to send me anything. I decided to correct his logic because, from my standpoint, he was pulling a curtain I had already rent across to shield those Responsive Records for whatever purpose):

—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
Date 6/30/2023 3:04:21 PM
Subject Re: RSA 91-A Right to Know Request

So far it has been!  Hope yours has been as enjoyable as mine has been thus far!

Relative to the attorney/client privilege, I wasn’t asking WHAT was said, only who was involved. Redacting any and all email bodies of such Responsive Records, would be fine – that erases any client/privilege communications that are subject to RSA 91-A:5, XII.

Providing names/email addresses and those connections, however, is not explicitly enumerated in that clause of the statute. The resulting digraph, which is of interest to me and the reason for the RTK,  would be void of ANY such prohibited privileged legal advice. Therefore, those records should be released and available for my inspection.

And yes, good wishes are returned back to you as we celebrate what our Founding Fathers, in their political genius, bequeathed to us – a governance model that first and foremost that was the first one that put citizens first and over a Government that should be totally and wholly responsive to them…

…And not the other way around. It is unfortunate that their aspirations have not yet been met in many ways.

-Skip

Let’s see what happens

The post Still Digging in: Which DCYF Personnel Were Included In On My Initially Botched RTK? appeared first on Granite Grok.

There’s a saying in software that the only numbers you should be seeing in code are zero, one, and infinity.  If you’re seeing other specific numbers (e.g., there can only be 140 characters in a message, or 255 characters in a filename, or a finite number of elements in a list), then someone is being lazy.

It occurs to me that the same is true when considering the ‘interpretation’ of constitutions by courts. Just recently, SCOTUS decided that POTUS didn’t have the authority to forgive student loan debt without action by SCOTUS.

Justice Kagan’s response?  That this is terrible because ‘some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides’.

So, 40 million Americans would be let off the hook for up to $20,000 each.  According to Justice Kagan, that’s sufficient reason to leave the program in place.

But what if the numbers were 4 million and $2000?  Or 400 and $20?  Should those numbers make any difference at all?  They should not.  As a rule, if you’re basing an argument on numbers, it means you’ve lost your connection to the underlying principles involved.

Note that the same is true about arguments over gun control, education, all flavors of welfare, voting, censorship, and so on. If you think that

RKBA works differently if the number of people killed with guns each year is 30,000 or 300;

a tax on income or assets is justified if it’s ‘small enough’;

a war on drugs is justified if the number of deaths from overdose is ‘large enough’;

shutting down entire economies and cultures and stripping people of the rights you’re supposed to be protecting becomes necessary when an infection rate is ‘high enough’;

and so on, then you have completely misunderstood the concepts of individual rights, delegated powers, and government by consent, and you shouldn’t be allowed to officiate at a little league game, let alone on the nation’s highest court.

The post Numbers aren’t Principles appeared first on Granite Grok.

The videos say it all. Just as Ray Epps somehow, someway has escaped prosecution for instigating … some would say leading … the “insurrection,” the person cutting down the security fence WHILE TRUMP IS STILL SPEAKING somehow, someway did not even get picked up by the FBI’s J6-radar. Amazing … isn’t it? But remember the real threat to America is NOT Merrick Garland or Chris Wray … it’s PUTIN; its PUTIN, PUTIN, PUTIN, PUTIN, PUTIN.

Two videos in one.

Watch what happened on SW lawn of Capitol grounds as Trump finished his speech at Ellipse around 1:10pm on January 6.https://t.co/WKb78SxpTQ

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) July 1, 2023

The post Nothing To See Here … Just The FBI Cutting Down The Fence Around The Capitol WHILE Trump Is Still Speaking appeared first on Granite Grok.

At some point, I think I would enjoy sitting down with DHHS Deputy Chief Legal Counsel John Martin for a chat “about stuff.” I have to admit; he’s probably the most responsive guy in State Government I’ve had to do business with. That said…

I had put in my “missive” concerning how it appeared that DCYF had doxxed TMEW and myself to people we don’t know (The Daughter-in-Law’s family and ex-spouses; a couple of the latter are also “abusers”) such that those people could then reach out to The Granddaughter to say “Hi!” et al.

Emphasis mine, reformatted:

My Daughter-in-law, Mother of my Granddaughter [that we are caring for], just called me to let me know that DCYF has released my personal information…While she did not catch/remember the name that called, she was told that DCYF was contacting her family members and friends to let them know where my Granddaughter can be found to contact her and she remembered some of the family names enumerated over the phone.

HOW DARE YOU release my information to people that I do not know!

Subsequent to that, I was told that some of the “ex-husbands” of that family member set are “abusers” of one type or another. A family friend that works dispatch for first responders was agog over this. I told that friend that I demanded to have the complete list because of the above, and that would explain that at some 3 am time of the morning, they’d be hearing from me in no uncertain terms.

But that’s not the purpose of this post. My email to DCYF on this went out at 12:57 PM yesterday.  At 1:30 pm, I got my response from Mr. Martin:

—— Original Message ——
From “Martin, John” <John.B.Martin@dhhs.nh.gov>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/30/2023 1:30:55 PM
Subject RE: Has DCYF now breached my PERSONAL information?

I will see that this gets to the right people for response.

We have a saying here at GraniteGrok (one of our informal mottoes):  Spank’em when they’re wrong but Thank’em when they’re right. I would be morally hypocritical not to take a moment and say thanks for the quick response on this. Thirty minutes, in the area of RTKs, is almost instantaneous.  I’m thinking that part of it was the data breach (and now I have thoughts of MORE Right to Knows to create!) and part of it was the danger aspect.  No matter which or both, it is appreciated.

NOW, when will I hear back? Probably not until next week due to the long holiday with the Fourth Of July falling on a Tuesday and many folks “filling in vacation days” to have the week off. I am hoping that someone there has the thought “what would happen if someone in that family has a grudge against DCYF and now knows where to go to “send a message” and will bounce it up and down faster to find someone that can get things done quickly.

And as I type this, I’m feeling that I ought to let our local constabulary know of this as well….

The post Is This The Most Responsive Guy in NH State Government? appeared first on Granite Grok.

And if you think that it isn’t, why is almost every decision it is making (especially “Administrative Rules” that have the force of Law) mean GOVERNMENT makes the decisions and not you and I? Are you really that dim-witted that you believe “but it’s for your own Good?”

Nope, you’d probably would have been considered a Tory or a Loyalist come Tuesday back 247 years ago.

Competition in a private property system is expected to guide resources to those uses that maximize the value of production secured from them. This value is measured by what consumers are willing to pay, making due allowance for the implicit value of leisure and other goods consumed outside the formal market arena. The profit criterion stops uses of resources that would result in more cost than benefit as these are measured by the money votes of consumers.

-Harold Demsetz (Economic, Legal, and Political Dimensions of Competition)

Competition can only happen when there is Freedom to compete. Sounds simple, sounds trite, but it is true. When Government believes it knows better than the millions of decentralized people making billions of decisions on their own for their own self-interest, the result is always better than Government control. We have had hundreds of years of examples of Socialism, fascism, and Corporatism that show my assertion to be true.

Each of those government/economic models is defined as “planning from the top” – centralized decision-making by a relatively paltry few who have the hubris to believe they can efficiently control economies that have billions of decisions – every hour. Each individual one focused on one person’s needs and desires but which, in the aggregate, form the “Invisible Hand” discussed by F.A. Hayek.  Efficient (perhaps not always the highest optimal, but “efficient enough” for each) in which their capital is put to the highest good.

Planners, as in Critical Race Theory adherents, only see groups and not the individual needs. And they can only approximately guess their needs, wants, and cost ranges. Because of that, they are insufficient when it comes to “Complete Knowledge” and, thus, end up with sub-optimal decisions because the limited information they have is already out-of-date by the time they receive it; the People have already moved on.

And planners are never concerned with the People’s concern with Time which is one of the most important issues of that decision-making – time to work vs. time for leisure.

Freedom to decide – that’s what our Founding Fathers gave us. Big and Bigger Government, run by bureaucrats and stupid elected officials, forget that was one of the driving forces for Independence.

IMHO, it is being taken from us – what are you actively doing to take it back?

Or are you that lump sitting on the couch?

(H/T: Cafe Hayek)

The post Notable Quote – With The Biden Administration Hurtling Into Corporatism and Fascism… appeared first on Granite Grok.

Apologies for the late update, as my DCYF saga continues. In Part 1, I put in a Right To Know requesting the volume and locations of DCYF abuse and neglect reports being made. The RTK payload (w/out the boilerplate) was rather simple.

For the Division of Children,Youth and Families (“DCYF”) and the time frame starting January 1, 2018 to today, June 17, 2023 (inclusive):

• Initial incident reports of neglect of a child/children, all sources
• Initial incident reports of abuse of a child/children, all sources
• Initial incident reports of neglect and abuse of a child/children, all sources

Only three data elements for each governmental record are demanded:

• Date of complaint filed with DCYF
• Complaint/incident type [neglect | abuse | neglect and abuse]
• Originating Town | City from where the complaint was filed

No other identifying or personal identifying data elements are requested or desired.

That was sent on 6/19/2023 1:13:02 PM.  I got a response the next day that it was received and was being sent to the data folks for the response. There was a concern from DHHS Deputy Chief John Martin concerning the ability to narrow into individuals as the targets of those incidents (emphasis mine right now):

…My only concern is that we do not release data at so low a level of granularity when there is the possibility of constructive identification.  If a report of abuse or neglect is made in a town with a very small population and we provide the specific date the report was made, it is possible that the identity of the alleged victim and/or alleged perpetrator could be derived using other sources of information, such as police reports or news accounts.  Therefore, it may be necessary for us to withhold certain information in accordance with RSA 91-A:5,IV.  For example, it may be necessary in some instances to withhold the name of the town if its population is very small, or it may be necessary to provide the month and year of the report, but not the specific day.

DCYF anticipates that it will take up to 30 days to pull the data.  I will provide the data to you as soon as I receive it and make any necessary redactions.

Valid points. I get it, but my response was this:

…My only concern is that we do not release data at so low a level of granularity when there is the possibility of constructive identification.

Which is why I asked for only 3 data items per incident. With such a paucity of data, there is no way to be able to tie it back to any particular family.

…we provide the specific date the report was made… it may be necessary to provide the month and year of the report, but not the specific day.

Point made. While part of my research was to see what days of a week or month turned out to be “least” and “maximal”, I am willing to amend my RTK to be MM/YYY. Would you want me to re-submit or can we do a “Gentleman’s Agreement” based on this email?

Or, formally state that I will forgo any attempts to use other sources in “pinpointing” within a town (that which you are worried about)?  I’m not looking for specific people with this RTK.

And all of my answers are absolute truth – I’m not looking to identify anyone – the construction of my RTK strictly marks that down (see above, Date, Complaint type, and town). And if DCYF does its job correctly, the Police do THEIR jobs correctly (which, in this case, is the protection of the Privacy of all involved) nowhere would there be “leakage” as to a family or individual.

So 30 days to receive the dataset. When I receive it, it will be interesting to see what the first takeaways will be.

The post Part 2: Update on RTK for DCYF Abuse and Neglect Incident Reports appeared first on Granite Grok.