2008 Liberty Ratings Are Out
The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance has released their 2008 Liberty Report card showing which state reps vote for giving more power to individuals and less to government and which support more government and higher taxes.
They define pro and anti liberty votes as follows:
Pro-liberty votes protect individual freedom of choice and personal responsibility, recognize the superiority of freedom over coercion, respect the citizen's right of self-ownership, promote good government, and recognize the value of voluntary economic decisions.
Anti-liberty votes replace self-governance with interventionist ownership, assume agencies backed by force are superior to voluntary choices backed by personal accountability, and assume a better economy can be designed by a central authority that compels communities to pay for policies people do not willingly support.
Here are the full results of the 5th Annual Liberty Ratings.
A solid congratulations to Jason Bedrick from Rockingham district 4 for topping the charts this year.
TOP 25 House Reps
Name District Grade
Bedrick, Jason Rockingham 4 A
Sorg, Gregory Grafton 3 A
Hogan, Edith Hillsborough 25 A
Itse, Daniel Rockingham 9 A
Elliott, Nancy Hillsborough 19 A
Tobin, William Belknap 2 A
Wendelboe, Fran Belknap 1 A
Gleason, John Rockingham 5 A
Reagan, John Rockingham 1 A
Manney, Pamela Hillsborough 7 A
Ober, Lynne Hillsborough 27 A
Ober, Russell Hillsborough 27 A
Stepanek, Stephen Hillsborough 6 A
Welch, David Rockingham 8 A
Hawkins, Ken Hillsborough 18 A
Ingbretson, Paul Grafton 5 A
Thomas, John Belknap 5 A
Day, Russell Hillsborough 7 A
Kurk, Neal Hillsborough 7 A
Lund, Howie Rockingham 5 A
Renzullo, Andrew Hillsborough 27 A
Weyler, Kenneth Rockingham 8 A
Soucy, Connie Hillsborough 17 A
Allen, Mary Rockingham 11 A
Baldasaro, Alfred Rockingham 3 A
BOTTOM 25 House Reps
Name District Grade
Shurtleff, Stephen Merrimack 10 CT
Wallner, Mary Merrimack 12 CT
Forest, Armand Hillsborough 17 CT
Ginsburg, Ruth Hillsborough 20 CT
Solomon, Peter Grafton 10 CT
Butcher, Suzanne Cheshire 3 CT
Cunningham, Howard Carroll 3 CT
Osborne, Jessie Merrimack 12 CT
Rollo, Michael Strafford 2 CT
Buco, Thomas Carroll 1 CT
Butynski, William Cheshire 4 CT
Cooney, Mary Grafton 7 CT
Day, Judith Rockingham 13 CT
Hackel, Paul Hillsborough 21 CT
Jean, Claudette Hillsborough 25 CT
Knowles, John Hillsborough 27 CT
Knowles, Mary Ann Hillsborough 27 CT
Marshall, Seth Hillsborough 23 CT
Pantelakos, Laura Rockingham 16 CT
Schulze, Joan Hillsborough 26 CT
Snow, Richard Rockingham 1 CT
Tilton, Joy Merrimack 6 CT
Wall, Janet Strafford 7 CT
O'Neil, James Hillsborough 19 CT
Kepner, Susan Rockingham 15 CT
Richard Barnes
24 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (24)
The Liberty Alliance statement below is and interesting premise, but its just that and nothing more.
Some very fat egos believe whatever they write sometimes. In this case our self proclaimed Arbiters of Liberty are as holier than thou as televangilists.
TO WIT:
"Anti-liberty votes replace self-governance with interventionist ownership, assume agencies backed by force are superior to voluntary choices backed by personal accountability, and assume a better economy can be designed by a central authority that compels communities to pay for policies people do not willingly support."
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
Clearly Jefferson must also have had a fat ego and felt he too was holier then thou. Its out right shameful that someone running for state senate would look at such statements with such discontent rather then the respect they deserve.
As far as I know Thomas Jefferson didn't write the words I quoted.
Right on. Liberty is not a fetish. Since I was a child, Blacks now have the Liberty to vote, women now have the liberty to compete in the business world and gays and lesbians have the liberty to enjoy marriage status.
Democrats have always taken the lead in CIVIL LIBERTIES, while Republicans have fought against individual liberties for the most cynical reasons.
The Liberty ratings are offensive.
Here's another thought on Jefferson. T Jeff "fathered" public education. He was a man of lofty rhetoric that was often hard to pin down.
But as a leader his fight for public education set the course for an educated working class.
Of course somebody has had to pay for that. The big ticket tax item remains public education.
The world ( and Thomas Jefferson ) isn't as black and white as you like to present it.
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/media/media_billtext.aspx?billnumber=CACR0002.html
My reading of that is the Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality of any new laws. They already rule on the constitutionality of each law that goes before them so the difference would be?
For the record CACR2 was not one of the bills the NHLA rated at all one way or another.
And Chaz, I suggest you look at actual voting records here in NH. Democrats are the ones running this state into debt, Democrats are the ones using courts to create laws rather then simply interpret them (part of what the above amendment seeks to stop) and Democrats took away freedom all year long by banning and taxing everything in their path. Tell me, which party supporting the smoking ban the most? Which party supported taxing candy?
You need to reread the bill. If passed, it would make the legislature the arbiter of the constitutionality of laws that it passed. This would reverse 200 years of American constitutional law.
As a practical matter, how likely is a legislature to pass a bill one day and then void it the next day because it is unconstitutional? There is in practice no limit to the power of the legislature under this CACR. It could pass a bill making itself the head of the executive branch, and then rule that this was constitutional.
The sad, pathetic thing about this bill was that 103 Republicans in the House were so pissed off about the court's Claremont decision that they went along with it. Liberty lovers, indeed.
Their explanation was that yes it could be viewed as "anti freedom" because it was an attack on the judiciary system, but it could justly be argued back that the "judicial activism" that it attacks was a power the judicial system was never intended to have in the first place. Since it could be argued either way and both argument are solid arguments without a right or wrong to them the NHLA choose to leave that bill out of their ratings just as they refuse to touch any abortion related issues for the same reason.
But one bill one way or another does not change someone from being an A rep to a constitutional threat. Your examples are nothing more then a distraction from the main point.
They also historically have wanted to raise taxes and control what business can do.
The GOP the opposite.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could take the best from both?
The rest, Day through Baldasaro, are rated A.
Either way, all good, liberty-minded legislators.
It's too bad Stepanek and Manney aren't running for reelection as Stepanek is running for executive council (www.stepanek2008.com) and Manney is running for County Commissioner, Hillsborough County, District 3 (www.pammanney.com).
CACR2 was the brain-child of Rep. Sorg, the 2nd highest rated legislator according to the NHLA. It was supported on the floor of the House by Rep. Itse, an officer in the NHLA. This bill is central to the vision of NHLA members, as evidenced by the lockstep voting record on it by their highest rated legislators.
Although the bill had virtually no chance of passing, it is considerably more important than a lot of the bills the NHLA considered in its ratings. For example, the NHLA came out against a bill, HB1309, that closed a loophole in the definition of a cigarette. This loophole let companies that added a drop of tobacco juice to the paper the cigarette is rolled in call their products little cigars and avoid our cigarette tax. You can argue that this is a good or bad policy, but "Anti-liberty"? Please.
Look at what these characters opposed: kindergarten aid, RGGI, healthcare for low income Granite Staters And what they supported: payday lenders and guns in the State House. The NHLA members are out of step with New Hampshire. No wonder their ranks got thinner last term, and no doubt there will be fewer again after November.
I think your discussion underscore how terribly subjective the liberty ratings are.
Again, the Liberty Ratings are driven by a holier than though attitude that is very off putting in my humble opinion.
I have many frieds who get the lowest ratings from the Liberty Alliance and when I hear terms like "enemy of the Constitution" I see red.
Yes!
Mike, what's subjective about 1309?
From the state's website:
"The Department states this bill changes the definition of a cigarette for tobacco tax purposes"
It gives MORE control to the government. That's exactly why they choose NOT to rate a bill that expands freedom while giving more power to the government. This one doesn't expand any freedom, it simply gives more power and control to the government. Fairly clear cut anti individual and pro government.
Also the NHLA gives each pro or anti liberty bill a value so something small such as this doesn't count as highly as a bill that would force everyone to wear seat belts for instance as that is a direct and clear cut violation of individual liberty that would impact everyone.
I am still a lttle confused why a bill like CACR2 that would give unlimited power to the legislature is not anti-liberty, but a bill that says a cigarette is a cigarette is anti-liberty. But I suppose in the looking-glass world of the NHLA all things are possible.
I find their term Constitutional Threat particularly galling. These self-important kooks wouldn't know a real constitutional threat if it hit them on their collected heads. If they want to disagree with the political positions of their opponents, fine. Do so. But don't use the smear that their opponents are a threat to the constitution.
The only saving grace is that the bizarro world view represented by the NHLA is quickly losing favor with the public, even a public as tolerant of idiosyncracies as ours is in NH. With any luck, their numbers will be halved after this election. In the fullness of time, the NHLA will go the way of the Know-Nothings and the John Birch Society, and public policy can be discussed sanely.
As for who's losing favor, we'll see come November. In the meantime keep pushing for higher taxes, more government spending, more anti Constitutional laws like the DC gun ban etc.
Great quote: People on both the far left and the far right overdo the holier than thou bit. I left Democracy for New Hampshire because a very loud group decided that they were the "arbitors of Democracy and the rest of us mere mortals.
Eventually, organitions based on ideology crumble in one way or the other. People tire of the attitude and migrate away.
Anyway this quote sums up my feelings too.
"I find their term Constitutional Threat particularly galling. These self-important kooks wouldn't know a real constitutional threat if it hit them on their collected heads. If they want to disagree with the political positions of their opponents, fine. Do so. But don't use the smear that their opponents are a threat to the constitution."
As if one of these self-appointed radical right-wing organizations weren't enough, in the NH House we also have to contend with the House Republican Alliance. This group of Elmer Gantrys also keeps score of every vote and publishes an annual score card rating each legislator.
Luckily, they seem more interest in attacking fellow Republicans they deem have strayed from the ideological fold than going after Democrats, so by and large their nuisance value is relatively small. They have something I think they call "the box", where erring Republicans who don't vote the "right way" are put to be publicly humiliated and shunned. Kind of like the public stocks in colonial days,
All good fun, of course, but it makes you wonder what they would be like if they ever came to power again.