-
"Poor priorities from Bass, Guinta"
For the Concord Monitor, Letters, By Cathy Merwin, Meredith, N.H., March 10, 2011
Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass talk about "slashing spending," but it seems that the spending they want to slash is funding for education, health care, job training and national security. They're not so tough when it comes to Big Oil. They voted against cutting taxpayer subsidies to oil companies - along with all of their fellow Republicans.
Ending the subsidies would save the federal government $40 billion and make a big dent in the Republicans' (supposed) goal of reducing the deficit.
The people who are suffering because of this economy are the middle class (which is shrinking every day) and the poor. The groups that are not suffering are corporations and the wealthy, who have more of that shrinking pie than ever before.
When you fill up your gas tank, remember that you are not only paying higher prices for gas, thanks to Republicans, you are also subsidizing the oil companies themselves.
That "trickle down" theory of the Republicans - as in, keep the tax breaks and subsidies for the rich and corporations and it will "trickle down" to the middle and lower class - how is that working for you?
CATHY MERWIN
Meredith, N.H.
----------
"About Great Bay"
Foster's Daily Democrat - Letter to the Editor - June 10, 2011
To the editor: Rep. Guinta's plan to force the EPA to keep "hands off Great Bay is a slap in the face to the many local agencies and volunteers who have strived to protect this unique body of water and the little critters who live in it. For years, volunteers from an alphabet soup of organizations have monitored the water quality of the rivers and streams flowing into the bay and in the bay itself. Guinta is saying those thousands of hours of effort were a big waste of time.
What's to happen to the oyster farming that is making a dramatic comeback? I remember visiting an uncle's camp on the bay as a kid in the early 'fifties when oysters were abundant, as were clams and flounders. And they were edible!
New Hampshire residents have the second-lowest total tax burden of any state in the whole country and the fourth-highest average income, according to an article in the AARP magazine. The towns and cities bordering Great Bay are among the wealthiest in the state. Surely they can afford enhanced wastewater treatment facilities.
Speaking of volunteers: as I recall a certain Greek magnate attempted to build a massive oil refinery at Great Bay several decades ago. And as I recall, his plan had the support of the Republican governor and the Republican-controlled state legislature. Fortunately, a group of citizen-volunteers vigorously fought the plan until it was scrapped.
Perhaps Guinta's anti-environment agenda will face similar opposition.
Tom Chase
Barrington, N.H.
----------
"Questions for Guinta"
By Lucy Edwards, Northwood, NH, Letter to the Editor, Concord Monitor, June 30, 2011
I wonder a lot about 1st District Congressman Frank Guinta. I wonder why he sponsors job fairs in New Hampshire, with just 30 employers, and then goes back to Washington and votes for policies that cause job losses of hundreds of thousands across the country.
Maybe he believes that New Hanpshire will be exempt from what that will do to our economy?
I wonder why he wants to destroy Medicare for our children and grandchildren and take away benefits we all have gained from the health care act that passed in 2010.
And now I have a new puzzle: Why is Guinta voting against safeguarding our food supply?
Guinta voted to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing our country to deal with the effects of climate change on the food we need.
With increasing drought in some areas, flooding in others, fires and violent storms and crop failures across the entire planet becoming more and more common, why wouldn't it make sense to plan how to feed us? Why take that chance? Because his campaign is supported by fossil fuel companies?
We need representatives who think things through, not ideologues who vote at the beck and call of large corporations.
LUCY EDWARDS
Northwood, NH
----------
"Who is Guinta working for?"
The Concord Monitor, Letter, March 19, 2012
Who's buying Congressman Frank Guinta? To which special interests is he selling out the people of New Hampshire?
Exxon Mobile contributes to Guinta and its investment is certainly paying dividends. Guinta opposes saving taxpayers billions of dollars every year by his refusal to support ending subsidies to the oil industry which in 2011 took in profits of $137 billion.
In fact, Guinta is such a shameless shill for big oil, he favors not charging oil companies when they drill on public lands, a disastrous policy position which would cost some $10 billion annually in lost revenue.
Other "Friends of Frank Guinta," his contributors like Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America, are suing our government to keep skyrocketing gas prices going up across the country as a result of their speculative activities that controls the commodities market. The Wall Street plutocracy, having caused the financial meltdown, throwing the nation's economy into recession and millions of people out of work, wants to gouge America's motorists like they did in 2008 while Guinta won't lift a finger to protect New Hampshire consumers from being ripped off by these speculators.
Exxon Mobile Chairman Rex Tillerson testified before the U.S. Senate in 2010 that if the price of oil was determined by supply and demand it would cost between $60 and $70 per barrel. Americans are currently paying Wall Street speculators a premium of $28 to $38 a barrel which is reflected in exploding gas prices at the pump, and Guinta couldn't be happier.
JOHN S. HANCOCK
Concord, New Hampshire
----------
“Trust science, not Frank Guinta”
Seacoastonline.com - Posted September 27, 2014
September 24, 2014 — To the Editor:
Former Congressman Frank Guinta and several other candidates running this election cycle deny human influence on climate change. We need to trust in science, and not in half-baked, biased, industry-funded “research.” Trusting in science has made us more prosperous and healthier, and a world leader in innovative technology.
According to NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/), 97 percent of climate scientists agree that “climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] has found that most of the rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is “very likely” (with a more than 90% probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human activity. This position is held overwhelmingly by hundreds of scientific organizations world-wide (see http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php).
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in 2005, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Frank Guinta doesn’t believe in “man-made” climate change and even thinks “science has not been solidified on this issue.” He prefers to side with the 3% of scientists who dispute the 97% scientific consensus. You have to dial the hands of time back to the 15th century before you find that backwards attitude toward science.
I’m voting for Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, who understands the challenge of climate change to global stability, security, and prosperity.
Juliette Paquin
Stratham, New Hampshire
----------
