Friday, November 4, 2011

Frank Guinta was wrong on TRAIN Act vote

-

-

"Guinta was wrong on TRAIN Act vote"
The Nashua Telegraph, Letters, November 4, 2011

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the TRAIN Act (HR 2401), which included a lengthy delay of two important Clean Air Act measures: the Mercury MACT Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., joined the pro-polluter majority in the House and voted for legislation that would expose Americans to toxic mercury and increase asthma attacks brought on by smog pollution for hundreds of thousands of New Hampshire citizens.

It is disappointing that Guinta would claim the costs of basic pollution protections that New Hampshire and America have relied on for 40 years are too high.

If the TRAIN Act is signed into law, 34,000 lives could be lost, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That is 34,000 people who could be saved by protections against dangerous pollution and who Guinta and the majority in the House have identified as collateral damage.

As the grandmother of two New Hampshire boys – one with asthma, the other with still young developing lungs – I feel a healthy economy begins with healthy people. Allowing corporations to dump toxic pollution into the air that our children and families breathe won’t help the economy recover.

I applaud the president for his vow to veto this bill and urge New Hampshire Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Jeanne Shaheen to reject the House’s reckless attack on American values and clean air.

I urge all citizens to voice your opposition to the TRAIN Act to your representatives.

Wendy Goddard
Derry, New Hampshire

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Guinta stands with the wealthy, not middle class

-

-

"Guinta stands with the wealthy, not middle class"
seacoastonline.com - Letters - October 8, 2011

Oct. 5 — To the Editor:

President Barack Obama's jobs bill addresses an undeniable need in our country to stimulate the economy and create jobs. To help pay for the initiatives that will create jobs, the bill includes ending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans — those whom billionaire Warren Buffet says have been enjoying a free ride for long enough.

The Republicans in Congress refuse to end these tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They claim these individuals will use that money to create jobs.

Tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans have been in place for the last decade. So where are the jobs? Why should we believe that this money would suddenly be used to create jobs when for the last decade it has been put back into company stocks or used for bonuses for company chief executive officers?

Let's face the truth: Republicans are defending tax breaks for the wealthy because these are the same individuals and corporations who finance their campaigns. Republican members of Congress cannot afford to lose the support of their wealthy campaign financiers. The middle class can no longer afford to subsidize the wealthy.

Republican Congressman Frank Guinta clearly stands with the Republicans in protecting the interests of the wealthy. Please pay attention to these important debates and decide which political party best serves the interests of you and your family.

Beth Olshansky
Durham, New Hampshire

----------

"Guinta should prepare to lose job to Shea-Porter"
Seacoastonline.com - Letters - January 26, 2012

Jan. 20 — To the Editor:

Don't say Frank Guinta didn't warn us.

After a perfectly miserable year with this tea-partier in Congress damaging the economy (and getting our credit rating lowered), and working hard with his tea party leader, Michele Bachmann, to try to shut down the government, he now has written this in his latest column: "Thank you, New Hampshire, for the privilege of representing you in Washington. Looking back on all that was accomplished in 2011, I only have one thing to say: 'You haven't seen anything yet!' Believe me, the best is yet to come."

Warn your friends and neighbors that he apparently is going to vote again for polluters and the top 1 percent. Warn your parents that it sounds like he plans to go after Social Security and Medicare again. Warn small businesses that he is going to again favor corporations over them, since that is where he gets his money. Warn your kids that he probably will vote again to reduce federal aid and their college Pell grant money, and warn your schools and towns that he will vote against them and the citizens they serve again this year.

Thanks for the warning, Rep Guinta. And here is my warning to you: You are going to be fired this November. Our district is going to vote for Carol Shea-Porter.

Herb Moyer
Exeter, NH

----------

"Guinta balks at deal on super PAC money"
The Nashua Telegraph, Letters, June 11, 2012

U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., recently rejected former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s wonderful idea to put New Hampshire residents ahead of outsiders by denouncing super PAC money.

An appalling 93 percent of super PAC money has come from just 726 individuals – 23 out of every 10 million people.

I’m not shocked that Guinta welcomes the coming avalanche of money from superwealthy outsiders. After all, Guinta is a fan of taking money wherever he finds it, then using it as wastefully as possible.

He was the No. 1 spender in the country for taxpayer-funded congressional mailings – which look suspiciously like campaign mailers – while closing one of our two district offices to help pay for them.

Guinta has yet to explain the $355,000 that mysteriously arrived in his campaign account in 2010 and is still being in investigated by the Federal Election Commission. These are some reasons why he was selected to the elite club of the 14 most corrupt legislators in our Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

As a leader of the regressive wing of the reactionary faction of the government-hating tea party, he has earned a National Journal ranking as the 31st most conservative congressman, all the while living off of the taxpayers for many years in a variety of government jobs.

Putting outsider super PACs ahead of New Hampshire residents is standard operating procedure for Guinta. Re-electing Shea-Porter would give us an honest, trustworthy, effective legislator who cares only about the residents of New Hampshire.

Lew Henry
Gilmanton Iron Works

----------

"Disgusted with Frank Guinta's deceitful ad"
Seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - October 2, 2014

September 30 - To the Editor:

I am disgusted with former Congressman Frank Guinta’s new deceitful and dishonest TV ad. Why, he’s pretending to be a Democrat!

It is not surprising that Guinta “is there” for his own family when they suffer illness and misfortune. It doesn’t necessarily follow that Guinta would “be there” for the families of millions of Americans he doesn’t know. In fact, Frank Guinta’s record shows he was not “there” for those millions.

“Help middle-class families pay for childcare?” Please. This is the Frank Guinta who voted (H.Con.Res. 34) to eliminate childcare subsidies for 150,000 children, drastically reducing the affordability and availability of quality childcare. He voted to slash Head Start by $1.1 billion (over 20 percent!) and kick out 218,000 children. He voted for sequestration cuts that forced Newmarket Head Start to close. I bet those families wished Guinta hadn’t been “there” in Congress to vote against their children.

Guinta didn’t cosponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act (for women’s equal pay); he didn’t even bother to vote when Democrats tried to bring the bill to the floor (5/31/2012). So much for “being there” for women.

This ad crosses the line from Guinta’s usual efforts to mislead into actual deceit. Shame, Mr. Guinta!

John C. Joyal
Somersworth

----------

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Frank Guinta demonstrates his ignorance in Congress!

-

-

"Guinta shows he is in over his head in Congress"
Seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - June 01, 2011

May 31 — To the Editor:

We elected Rep. Frank Guinta to Congress last November, but that doesn't mean he's qualified for the job. It was apparent this week that he is in over his head.

Guinta sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Organization and Financial Management, giving him an opportunity to question the Obama administration on banking and other matters. On May 24, his subcommittee took testimony from Elizabeth Warren, a strong consumer protection advocate charged with setting up with new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a target of Republicans trying to protect the banks from regulation.

Mr. Guinta embarrassed himself and New Hampshire voters. Here is the key excerpt from his five minutes of questioning (you can see it at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BureauOve/start/2337/stop/3593):

Mr. Guinta: "Can you tell me why there's a necessity for a five-year fixed term when I don't believe anyone else in history has had that period of time as an appointment?"

Ms. Warren: "Congressman, I think many terms are five-year fixed terms. It's my understanding that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finished his five-year term last August."

Mr. Guinta: "But those entities, I think, are at the discretion of Congress — there's an oversight process through appropriations. You're excluded from that."

Ms. Warren: "No, congressman, I'm sorry, but that's not the rule with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. There is no banking regulator who is subject to the political process or to appropriations. All banking regulators are funded independently ... (from assessments on banks)."

Ms. Warren went on to instruct Mr. Guinta in the basics of the industry his subcommittee oversees. Mr. Guinta knows he disagrees with Ms. Warren, but he can't get the details straight about why.

Mr. Guinta sounds reasonable, if you don't look too closely at his actual positions: opposing consumer financial protection, replacing Medicare with vouchers, opposing job creation programs, giving oil companies free leases if they have to give up their subsidies. But we've elected a tea party ideologue to represent us in Congress. Next time, we need to do better.

Bill Duncan
New Castle, NH

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Frank Guinta votes against raising debt limit!

-

-

"Raise the debt ceiling...so U.S. can meet financial obligations"
seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - May 31, 2011

To the Editor:

If Congress does not vote to raise the debt limit, virtually all economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that bad things will happen.

The country is not like a household, it can't just skip a payment or two and send a check later. The debt limit needs to increase so that the country can continue to meet financial obligations.

Republican Congressional leaders and the president also agree that bad things will happen if the debt limit is not raised. But that is not preventing Congressional Republicans from playing "chicken" with the issue. And, shamefully, both New Hampshire Congressman Frank Guinta and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte are going along with Republican leadership on this.

When I was growing up, if Republicans and Democrats agreed that action was needed on an important issue, if they agreed what needed to be done, then they would take action. In this case, action is simple, and can happen any time. Vote to raise the debt limit. Prevent the country from defaulting on its obligations.

But Guinta, Ayotte and their Republican leaders are pointing a gun at the economy of the country, and if they don't get their way on other things, they are threatening to pull the trigger. I've seen spoiled children with more sense.

It's the obligation of both the president and Congress to make this happen, not to use it as a negotiating device for separate agendas. I thought Guinta and Ayotte could be independent, could be voices of reason, but apparently not. This is sad and shameful.

Greg Tillman
Epping, NH

-----

U.S. Representative Frank Guinta (R, NH-01) voted against H.R. 1954, a clean bill authorizing an additional $2.4 trillion increase in the federal government debt ceiling. (A "clean" bill does not contain any amendments, conditions or restrictions, such as a reduction in federal spending.) The measure was defeated in a lopsided bipartisan vote. Frank Guinta said his vote against increasing the debt ceiling is an important step in restoring fiscal responsibility to the nation's finances. Frank Guinta said, "I will only consider raising the debt ceiling in another bill later on if --and only if-- it contains significant cuts in federal spending and meaningful budgetary reforms. Otherwise, I will vote "no' again."

Source: "Rep. Frank Guinta Votes Against Clean Bill to Raise the Debt Ceiling" (Statement by Frank Guinta, May 31, 2011).

-----

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Frank Guinta criticized for voting to cut Medicare! Frank Guinta also supports chained CPI proposal.

-

-

"Guinta faces rowdy crowd in NH"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, April 28, 2011

EXETER, N.H. – Members of Congress have talked about the hard choices that must be made to get the country’s debt under control. Now, they’re figuring out just how difficult those decisions are going to be – and the political price that could be paid for making them.

Representative Frank Guinta, a first-term Republican from Manchester, faced a feisty crowd tonight at a town hall meeting in a high school in this quiet town near the seacoast.

The crowd booed at some responses, hissed at others. Audience members yelled and pointed at the congressman, and they yelled and pointed at each other.

Guinta was swept into office last year with a wave of Tea Party-fueled anger – largely over the economy and health care – and, constituents seemed to remind him tonight, he could just as easily be swept out.

It was an indication of the unrest going on throughout the country, as House Republicans attempt to defend their votes to implement drastic budget cuts and curb long-cherished entitlement programs.

A 73-year old man stood up and criticized the plan to cut Medicare, which has become one of the most controversial aspects of the budget blueprint that was drafted by Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and approved earlier this month by the House.

“Why congressman Guinta?” he said. “Why in the world did you ever vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan?”

Guinta began to answer, by saying many of the changes likely wouldn’t be phased in in time to affect him.

“What about me?” shouted Joe Platte, an eighth grader from Stratham, NH. “I’m 14! What am I going to do?”

“This is a tough issue, and I sympathize with anyone who is reliant on a program like this, or who expects to be on a program like this,” Guinta said. “But my goal, my objective, is to make sure that if you’re in or near retirement, nothing changes. Because the country made a promise to you.”

Later, he said, “If you don’t like the plan, let me know.” The crowd applauded loudly to let him know they didn’t like it.

Guinta faced criticism on a variety of issues, including the extension of the tax cuts for wealthy Americans – which was approved in December, a month before Guinta took office. Throughout, he tried to keep the audience calm, repeating a mantra: “Let’s find common ground.”

“It is getting more contentious,” Guinta conceded at one point. “I’d like to see an America that doesn’t pit people against each other. I’d like to see an America that comes together.”

He also recounted seeing Representative Barney Frank, the Democrat from Massachusetts, being interviewed on MSNBC. Frank spoke in favor of several proposals that he agreed with, including potentially leaving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and reducing certain taxes.

“If I can stand in New Hampshire and say those things, and Barney Frank can stand in Massachusetts and say those things,” Guinta said, “I think there’s hope for us in this country to find common ground.”

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mviser.

----------

Activists hold signs during a news conference in this April 15, 2011 photo on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. According to a new ABC News poll, Americans broadly reject a voucher plan for the Medicare system and support higher taxes on the wealthy, rejecting two central tenets of the Republican debt-reduction plan. Alex Wong/Getty

"Tea Party Lawmaker Frank Guinta Draws Ire Over Medicare Vote"
By MICHAEL FALCONE (@michaelpfalcone) and GREGORY SIMMONS, ABC News -
EXETER, N.H. April 29, 2011

Facing a feisty crowd of constituents who shouted, interrupted and shook their heads at him, freshman Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., spent two hours Thursday night calmly defending his vote for a GOP-led plan to overhaul the country's Medicare system.

"Why Congressman Guinta, why in the world, did you ever vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan," asked, Gary Patton, who posed the first question at an often raucous town hall meeting the congressman hosted at a local high school here.

Patton, 73, told Guinta that he was concerned that the plan introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee, would "end Medicare as we know it."

"The proposal that was in the House last week, again, does not affect anyone who is 55 or older," Guinta assured. "I want to try to allay some fears about the proposal, I want to make sure that people have the proper information. If you don't like the plan, let me know that."

Someone shouted back: "We don't like it!"

Guinta, who rode the Tea Party wave to Washington last year, is one of many new lawmakers who are now facing difficult questions from voters back at home as they wrestle with how to deal with the country's rising debt and whether to make sweeping changes to entitlement programs like Medicare.

"Congressman Guinta is very smooth, he's very slick," Patton, a retired resident of Hampton, N.H., said in an interview with ABC News after the town hall meeting, adding that he was not satisfied with the congressman's answer to his question.

Patton wasn't the only one.

Joe Platte, a middle school student from nearby Stratham, N.H., who took a back-row seat at the meeting, interjected: "What about me? I'm 14, what am I going to do."

The contentious gathering of more than 100 Seacoast residents did not appear to catch Guinta by surprise. He handled the combative crowd gingerly, emphasizing his desire to "find common ground" even with those who disagree with him.

He plowed through more than a dozen questions on issues ranging from ethanol subsidies ("we ought to do away with it, pure and simple," he said) to the national debt.

"I think we're at a serious point in our economy" Guinta said, "and I think we're getting got a tipping point."

He took an I-feel-your-pain approach to the issue of rising gas prices, telling his constituents that he recently filled up the tank of his Ford Edge.

"I filled up last night and it cost me $71.50," he said. "To have almost $4 a gallon gas, I think affects every single one of us in this room."

At several points Thursday night, however, Guinta could not deliver complete answers without interruptions from the crowd. "I would like to finish my statement," the House freshman said amid a mix of cheers and boos when one member of the audience declared that President Obama "doesn't give a damn about reducing spending."

"I understand that there is a lot of passion and a lot of emotion -- it's why this job is so important right now," Guinta said. "Let's put our energy on things we can agree to rather than divide the country farther."

----------

"Guinta missed the point"
seacoastonline.com - May 17, 2011

To the Editor:

Recently I attended Congressman Frank Guinta's town meeting in Exeter where approximately 80 percent of the audience was over 55. Prior to the meeting with Representative Guinta, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Ryan Budget, a budget that made major changes to Medicare, taking away many future benefits for people currently under 55.

After the congressman spoke for a few minutes about Washington events, he opened the event up to a question and answer session.

The first questioner pointed out that the Ryan budget "gutted Medicare," and, "given that, how on earth could you, Congressman Guinta, have voted for it?" (Pretty close to a direct quote.)

Mr. Guinta explained that the proposed budget did not affect those 55 and over, so the vast majority of his audience had nothing to worry about. The proposed changes wouldn't affect them. The immediate reaction: A strong uproar.

Mr. Guinta repeated his theme, that there was no change to Medicare coverage for those 55 and over.

The audience again made it clear that they were not happy with his response.

In an attempt to correct the disconnect between congressman Guinta and his audience, I quietly said to him (I was in the front row, about 5 feet away), "Frank, they're talking about fairness."

Until then, he had not grasped the idea that a large portion of the audience was concerned not about themselves, but about others, about what kind of future ordinary people would have in the United States. They were concerned about social justice and fairness for those who came after them.

The concept seemed completely foreign to the congressman!

Congressman Guinta was addressing the wrong issue. He responded as if the only concerns the audience had were about their own well-being. He did not see that the negative response he was getting was from people concerned with the future and well-being of others, not just themselves.

We need, as our representatives, people with a wider world view than "I've got mine, tough for the rest of you." Our country can't survive on such a self-centered philosophy.

Michael Frandzel
Portsmouth, New Hampshire

----------

"Medicare works, leave it alone"
By CAROL SHEA-PORTER, Special to the Bedford Journal, May 20, 2011

Beware, anyone who is old or disabled or might ever get old or disabled. If the Republicans in the United States House of Representative have their way, Medicare is going to be destroyed. The Paul Ryan plan, the so-called Path to Prosperity, privatizes Medicare and turns it into a voucher program that would hurt the old, the future old, and the disabled.

As USA Today reporter Catalina Camia wrote on April 12, “Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and people with disabilities, would be turned over to private insurers under Ryan’s budget plan and would end up costing beneficiaries more money or give them less in services.”

Why would our Republican members of Congress do this to the old and the vulnerable?

They claim that it will save seniors money and allow them to choose. However, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it will actually cost seniors more. How much more? The CBO says it would double the cost of insurance for seniors. And that is just for starters.

My mother is 87 and very ill. How in the world is she supposed to “shop around” for a good insurance deal, and what for-profit company would ever choose to insure her? Under Medicare, my mom already gets to choose. She has chosen her doctors, her hospital and her hospice. The Republicans are deliberately misleading people about this.

Republicans also claim that this will somehow drive down costs because they claim that Medicare issues blank checks and does not try to control costs. That also is false. Medicare operating costs run between 3 percent to 7 percent for overhead, while private insurance companies have been passing their overhead costs of up to 37 percent to their customers.

As the April 18, USA Today Editorial stated about Medicare: “In fact, it delivers coverage for lower costs. Doing away with the most efficient system hardly seems the best way… ”

Medicare also has set reimbursement rates for hospitals and providers, which helps save money.

Still, they must do better with our money, so I am pleased that the new health care law gets tougher on waste, fraud, and inefficiency.

Improving a great system is better than destroying it, but our members of Congress voted to destroy Medicare.

Paul Ryan and our members claim this does not hurt seniors or those who are 55 and older. This, too, is false. Their plan slashed Medicaid, and the elderly who cannot afford to pay for nursing home care use Medicaid. As a matter of fact, 25 percent of Medicaid dollars are spent on seniors, and 42 percent is spent on the disabled. That equals 67 percent of the Medicaid budget! This opens up another problem for middle-class Americans. If the Federal Government is not going to help pay for the nursing home, where will the money come from? Most hardworking middle class families will not be able to pay for their parents and pay for their children’s educations. The squeeze will just be too much, so this Medicare and Medicaid slashing will hurt all ages.

Here is the ugliest part of all. This budget plan that both of our New Hampshire congressmen voted for hurts the old and the disabled and the middle class, and our representatives admit it by saying there has to be “shared sacrifice.”

However, the money that they save will not be used to pay down the deficit. No, it will be used to cut taxes for the very rich. That’s right – the very rich will see their taxes reduced while you or your loved one see essential services reduced.

Is this what Americans really want? Apparently, it is not. Across the country, good people of all parties – Republicans, Democrats and Independents – are showing up at town halls and telling their members to leave Medicare and other essential programs alone, that they want to support programs that help their neighbors and communities, that they care about each other. House Republicans miscalculated when they figured that most people only care about themselves, so seniors would not speak up for others. Turns out they were wrong.

Just as I have always believed, we are a great nation full of great people who help each other. It is the American way. So is Medicare. Leave it alone, House Republicans.

Find the money to pay down the debt by voting against tax loopholes, taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and other huge conglomerates, by cutting waste, and by campaign finance reform, which will clean up abuse. But leave Medicare alone.

Former congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s 1st District from 2007-11. She wrote the proposal for and established a nonprofit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages. She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

----------

"Whose side is Guinta on?"
Bedford Journal/Cabinet, Letters, May 24, 2011

To the Editor:

U.S. Representative from New Hampshire District 1, Frank Guinta, has publicly backed the budget plan presented by Rep. Paul Ryan. This plan would cut costs from the budget by gutting important entitlement programs such as Medicare while preserving billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil industry.

The Republican proposal would eliminate Medicare as we know it and put in its place a voucher system. You would receive some allotment of money to help buy your health insurance from an insurance company. If the Republicans get their way, the insurance companies will be free of the consumer protection aspects of the recently enacted health care reform legislation. This would leave the insurance companies free to reimpose pre-existing condition clauses and lifetime limits.

There is no assurance that the subsidies will make health care affordable when they take effect in 2022 or that it would keep up with health care inflation thereafter. Our minds are supposed to be put at ease by the thought that only those younger than 55 will be affected by the new plan.

Rep. Guinta tells us that he is on our side, but recent polls say otherwise. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll reported that 78 percent of those polled oppose cutting Medicare. The same poll showed that President Obama’s suggestion to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans wins solid support. The recent NY Times/CBS poll revealed that 60 percent of those responding said that they believe Medicare is worth the cost and they would rather see higher taxes than a reduction in available services.

The plan supported by Reps. Guinta and Ryan is too extreme to garner popular support and is too lopsided in favor of the insurance industry and the wealthiest Americans to provide a basis for compromise.

FLOYD INMAN
Bedford, New Hampshire

----------

"Cost-shifting"
Foster's Daily Democrat - Letters to the Editor — June 10, 2011

To the editor: I am disappointed by Rep. Guinta's continued support of the Ryan budget that will end Medicare. Nearly 80% of the U.S. wants this important program strengthened, not weakened and ended as Guinta and Ryan are planning. Theirs is a huge cost-shift to future seniors who, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be required to spend 66% more on their health care than they do today. Remember, these are the same two Congressmen who voted to continue $40 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for the Big Oil companies and are now saying our country cannot afford health care for our seniors.

While the focus has been on this reckless and extreme Medicare plan, for good reason, there's another component to the Guinta/Ryan budget that has me very concerned, and is not getting much coverage. There is also an attack on Medicaid. Now, understandably, most folks don't know how Medicaid cuts will impact them. But it does so in hidden ways. Medicaid is not just for the poor and indigent — it pays for 66% of nursing home residents. By turning Medicaid into flat-amount block grants, the program is eviscerated and states will be forced to cut off funds for millions of seniors in need.

While fighting for tax cuts for the wealthy, and tax breaks for mega-corporations, Representative Guinta is telling us that we cannot afford health care for the most vulnerable in our society. Our simple message back: We cannot afford Guinta.

Joe Cicirelli
Stafford, New Hampshire

----------

"Ryan's budget"
Foster's Daily Democrat - Letters to the Editor — June 10, 2011

To the editor: At the Exeter Town Hall meeting with my congressman, Frank Guinta, he assured me that, as people over 54, the Medicare changes he voted for in Paul Ryan's budget will not affect me or my husband at all. However, he was not able to assure me that our children and grandchildren will have the economic security that real Medicare provides when they reach retirement age.

Since that meeting, I have learned more about the Ryan budget that Mr. Guinta voted for. Besides more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, it takes away the Medicare improvements in the Affordable Care Act that will cut costs for us old folks. I am particularly upset about the doughnut hole fix that Carol Shea Porter worked so hard to get. That will save our family a lot of money. And who's to say that once real Medicare is gone for the young, some future Congress won't decide it's too expensive for the dwindling number of beneficiaries of the real thing.

You ran accusing Carol Shea Porter and other Democrats of trying to cut Medicare when they were trying to cut costs, not benefits. Now you are trying to abolish it completely and you think you can fool us by not changing the name. Vouchers to buy private insurance, if we can get it, are not going to provide any security in old age when most of us have the highest health care costs in our lives. No, I'm not buying, Mr. Guinta.

Lucy Edwards
Northwood, New Hampshire

----------

"Telling the truth would be end of road for Guinta"
seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - June 30, 2011

June 26 — To the Editor:

My phone rang the other night. When I picked it up, there was a recorded message inviting me to stay on the line to participate in Congressman Guinta's tele-town hall. As an interested citizen, I decided to stay on the line. This was my second tele-town hall this year. As I listened to Frank blather on, I thought to myself, "This guy has it made. He gets credit for holding 'town halls' while not having to deal with the public. Clever, indeed."

As I listened, I was reminded how exhausting it is just to try to figure out what our congressman is saying. Rarely does he answer a question directly, and by the time he finishes his response, you have forgotten what the question was. Nor can you figure out what he has actually said. The congressman has become an artful dodger. He also must have realized that the longer his responses, the fewer questions he has to answer.

I also noticed that Frank's statements are misleading. He repeatedly mentions how he is all for bipartisanship. That sounds good until you look at his voting record. I guess the bipartisanship occurs when Democrats come over to his side.

Frank is also not fully honest with voters. His statements about Medicare, which I have heard repeated over and over again, and seen printed in the political propaganda he sends out (at taxpayers' expense) tell only half the story. "Congressman Frank Guinta supports a plan that protects and strengthens Medicare by preserving the existing benefits for workers and retirees over age 55, eliminating waste and fraud and giving younger workers more choices for their healthcare ..." Frank and his staff forget to mention that "the choices" for those under age 55 will cost them plenty. He sugarcoats the truth, hoping to sweet-talk voters into looking no further. Of course, the voting population under 55 is large indeed. Frank must realize that, if he tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he is history.

Beth Olshansky
Durham, New Hampshire

----------

"Guinta voted for harmful health care legislation"
Seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - July 9, 2011

July 7 — To the Editor:

In April, Frank Guinta and his fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the budget sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). This budget would eliminate Medicare as a guaranteed benefit program. Under Ryan, future seniors would get a voucher to be used to purchase private insurance.

Their plan would not hold down health care costs. Instead, costs would be shifted to seniors, who would have to pay more and more out-of-pocket for their health care. Under today's Medicare, seniors are typically responsible for 25 percent of their total costs. Stuck with having to purchase private insurance with a voucher of diminishing value, future Medicare beneficiaries could have to pay up to 68 percent of their health care costs (source: Congressional Budget Office).

In another alarming but less noticed provision, the Ryan plan increases the age at which seniors get Medicare. It's now 65, but starting in 2022, the eligibility age would increase by two months per year, so that by 2033, you'd have to be 67 to get Medicare.

Frank Guinta's assertion that current Medicare beneficiaries would be held harmless is not true. The Ryan plan would do immediate harm by repealing the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Repeal would eliminate free preventive health screenings and would bring back the gap in prescription drug coverage (the "doughnut hole"). The Ryan plan would wipe out the savings on prescription drugs just now kicking in under ACA.

The Ryan budget contains more than changes to Medicare. It is a plan for the entire federal budget. If it ever became law, middle- and low-income individuals would be burdened with serious benefit cuts, but corporations would still get their wasteful tax subsidies. Millionaires and billionaires would get yet another tax break.

We know from the Bush years that corporate tax loopholes and massive tax cuts for the super-wealthy did not create jobs. Instead, income for the very rich soared while the rest of us were left with stagnant wages.

Unfortunately, our congressman supports these failed policies. They did not work in the past and will not work in the future. Based on his vote on the Ryan budget alone, Frank Guinta does not deserve re-election.

Joan Jacobs
Portsmouth, NH

----------

"Rep. Guinta running from his vote to gut Medicare"
seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor, January 17, 2012

Jan. 15 — To the Editor:

At his recent senior center visit in Somersworth, Rep. Frank Guinta said that seniors "worry about the future," especially about Medicare and Social Security, until he manages to "assuage" their fears "somewhat." But seniors should worry. Mr. Guinta's slick line is deceptive.

Mr. Guinta keeps on denying the undeniable, namely that he voted to privatize Medicare and, yes, to turn it into a voucher system. He voted for privatization; he should have the courage to embrace it. He voted to terminate Medicare as a guaranteed benefit program and to make seniors — many of whom have pre-existing conditions or serious illnesses — buy insurance on the private market. The premium support payments (yes, they're vouchers) would be tied to the cost of living and not to the cost of health care (which has been rising more than three times faster). The ever-

increasing gap between voucher support and premium costs will eventually force seniors to choose between, say, food and medical coverage. What insurance company would even want to sell affordable insurance to seniors, who are certain to need medical care? Where's the profit in that?

This is why Medicare was instituted in the first place — because by the 1960s, most seniors had no health insurance and couldn't afford it. Though Guinta is too young to remember how it was, he should at least inform himself. Is he ignorant or does he just not care about his constituents? Either way, he's in the wrong job. He should go back to the insurance business.

Susan Newman Manfull, Ph.D.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire

----------

"Guinta's voting record is puzzling"
EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA, Letter, January 18, 2012

To the editor:

I am getting annoyed at being puzzled by my congressman, Frank Guinta. I got a video from a friend showing that Mr. Guinta didn't know that when he voted for HR 3630, the payroll tax cut extension, he also voted to increase the amount of Medicare premiums paid by high-income beneficiaries and the number of beneficiaries required to pay these higher premiums, and to cut the Medicare provider rates for physicians and hospitals. Cutting that rate would mean fewer doctors would take on new Medicare patients.

That bill would also raise Medicare premiums on seniors by 15 percent starting in 2017 and slash the health care reform law's Prevention and Public Health Fund by $8 billion. The public health system and preventative health initiatives not only safeguard our health, they save us all money.

I guess Frank didn't read the bill. He really doesn't have to, because he has corporate masters who tell him how to vote on things. Carol Shea-Porter read the bills she voted on. How do I know? I looked at her legislative record, and saw that she added amendments to a number of bills that improved them substantially.

Shea-Porter knew how to persuade her colleagues to do the right thing. She cared about us, and we need her back in Congress!

Lucy Edwards
Northwood, N.H.

----------

"What about the rest of us, Rep. Guinta?"
Seacoastonline.com - Letter to the Editor - January 28, 2012

Jan. 24 — To the Editor:

On Jan. 22, Seacoast Sunday published "Reflections ..." by Rep. Frank Guinta. I expected to read about what has been done for his constituents. After all, we pay his salary! Instead, let's just see the emphasis of his reflections on his "performance" for us. After his short introduction, I have his extracted excerpts beginning in the second paragraph to highlight what he sees as important:

"I reached ... I took ... I've done ... I went ... I made ... I'm pleased ... My office ... My staff ... I have ... My weekly ... I held ... everybody can talk to me ... I'm working ... I'm working ... I visit ... I'm pleased ... I'll tell ... I've sponsored ... I've co-sponsored ... I was honored ... I'm actively ... I voted ... I voted ... I only have ... I look ... I can ... I'm doing ... I am ... [end of excerpts]."

And what did you accomplish for the rest of us, Mr. Guinta? What about us, Frank? All you seem to care about is providing us voters with what you want us to think — that you are busy. I noticed that you never mentioned privatizing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. You never mentioned trying to strangle the government's resources by refusing to support revenue increases.

Try using first-person singular a little less and a conscience a little more.

Hiram Connell
Somersworth, NH

----------

"Guinta defends, Democratic candidates blast, latest Paul Ryan budget plan"
By JOHN DiSTASO, Senior Political Reporter, NH Union Leader, March 20, 2012

WASHINGTON _ Republican U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta today embraced the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which was unveiled on Capitol Hill this morning, as a bold solution to the nation's fiscal woes.

While Democrats blasted the plan as a scheme to balance the nation's budget on the backs of seniors, the poor and middle class, House freshman Guinta, who is up for reelection in November, said, “We must rise to the challenge of reforming and modernizing government programs that were enacted in the 1960s and make them more effective and efficient for the needs of the 21st Century.

“If we don't,” he said, “we will be buried in an avalanche of debt that will cripple our country financially for decades to come.”

Fellow Republican U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass, who backed the Ryan plan last year and is also expected to have a tough reelection fight this year, took no immediate position on the updated version, promising to "take a very hard look at his proposal to make sure it balances our state and nation's needs while getting our fiscal house in order.”

Guinta, as a member of the budget committee headed by Wisconsin Republican Ryan, has been closely involved in the formulation of the plan.

It calls for spending cuts that would reduce the deficit from its present $1.18 trillion to $797 billion in 2013 _ nearly $200 billion less than under President Barack Obama's budget,

Guinta said in an interview that although the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes, based on its economic assumptions, that the plan would not allow the deficit to be erased until 2038, House Budget Committee Republicans believe that under a “best case scenario,” the plan sets the budget on a course to balance between 2016 and 2024.

The plan would change Medicare for those under age 55 from a direct government-payment program for all to one that allows recipients to choose either the existing system or one in which the government subsidizes the purchase of private health insurance.

Guinta called that “a bipartisan, practical approach to safeguarding Medicare for future generations.”

“You can choose the existing plan as it exists today with no changes, or you can opt to do ‘premium support,'” he explained.

“It still does not affect anyone 55 or older. It is more of a competitive approach and you have means testing so the wealthier the senior, the less assistance they get. The more needy the senior, the more financial assistance they get,” said Guinta.

“There is a recognition that Medicare, according to the program's trustees, will go broke within 12 years if we don't do something about it,” Guinta said. “There is a growing bipartisan willingness to change the system.”

The plan also calls for major tax code reforms. It would reduce the number of tax brackets from six to two, at 10 percent and 25 percent. The highest rate for the wealthiest Americans is now 35 percent.

The corporate tax rate would also be cut from 35 to 25 percent.

He also the corporate tax rate drop will allow American companies that are now investing in other countries to keep their profits at home and invest at home.

Democrats called the proposed change in individual tax rates nothing more than tax cuts for the wealthy, but Guinta said the plan reforms “our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.”

Bass, in a statement, commended Ryan "for putting forth a budget – something the Senate Democratic leadership has failed to do for nearly three years now – that recognizes Washington's current habit of spending and ignoring the unsustainable growth of programs will only land us in further debt. I will take a very hard look at his proposal to make sure it balances our state and nation's needs while getting our fiscal house in order.”

Even if the plan passes the House, it is dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But Guinta said that with an April 15 deadline looming, there is an outside chance that, through a process called reconciliation, “this budget could become law with very few amendments” with a simple majority in the Senate.

“The Senate hasn't passed a budget within 1,000 days,” Guinta said. “I'd ask why the Senate is choosing to ignore a basic responsibility.”

He said that even if the Ryan plan does not pass, it will be House GOP blueprint for negotiations on future spending bills.

“So, this is not simply an exercise in futility,” Guinta said. “This is real. These numbers will set the tone for our negotiating points for however the Senate chooses to move the process forward.”

Democratic former two-term 1st District U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, who was defeated by Guinta in 2010 and is seeking a rematch this year, said that he and other House Republicans “have once again taken aim at the old, the young, the sick, the poor, and the middle class.

“We need to shrink the deficit, but I will not support doing that by giving tax cuts to the very wealthy and to oil companies, rewarding companies that send jobs out of the country, ending Medicare and turning it into a voucher program, cutting Pell grants that help students pay for college, and by cutting too deeply into the budget,” Shea-Porter said.

Shea-Porter said Guinta “does not believe in government. He has said that he wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, the Department of Education, the EPA, the Department of Energy, Amtrak, medical research, and many other programs. Congressman Guinta is too extreme for New Hampshire, and his budget is too extreme for New Hampshire also.”

Fellow Democratic 1st District U.S. House candidate Joanne Dowdell said, “We need to balance the budget,” but Republicans “want to do it by eliminating Medicare as we know it while giving millionaires a free pass. I want to do it by making special interests, huge corporations, and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share.”

Dowdell and Shea-Porter are facing off in a Democratic primary for the right to face Guinta in the general election.

Guinta said, “What you see from the Democrats is more partisan rhetoric than anything else.”

----------

"Guinta's funding cuts reflect his real interests"
SeaCoastOnline.com - Letter to the Editor, March 26, 2012

March 22 — To the Editor:

Last week, many of us received a multicolored campaign mailer from Congressman Frank Guinta (paid for by the New Hampshire taxpayers), vowing that he would protect the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) nutrition program. Yesterday, in the Budget Committee consideration of the Republican Ryan Budget, Guinta provided the deciding vote (19-18) to cut that program, along with funding for veterans' services, transportation, programs for seniors, and services like Pell Grants and other support for education.

Guinta's vote helped push this bill through committee in just 24 hours, without giving House members time to read it. I don't know exactly which special interests Frank Guinta is looking out for, but I know it's not the best interests of the citizens of the 1st Congressional District. We need to change our representative in Congress.

Lenore Patton
Hampton, N.H.

----------

"Guinta announces he's again a candidate for Congress"
By John DiStaso, New Hampshire Senior Political Reporter, NH Union Leader, September 22, 2013

MANCHESTER — Calling for an end to partisan gridlock and for more "New Hampshire common sense" in Washington, former U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta made it official today that he is a candidate for the 1st District seat he lost last November.

The former Manchester mayor made the announcement, along with his wife, Morgan, in a two-minute web video available on his web site, TeamGuinta.com. He also announced his candidacy in the 2014 mid-term elections during an early-morning appearance at the Bedford Republican Committee's annual breakfast meeting at the Manchester Country Club.

In the video, Guinta, dressed casually, sits at a table, presumably in his home, and says that the "news out of Washington is pretty depressing these days" with "politicians of both parties" more interested in "fighting than making tough decisions and solving our problems."

He says that by working together "we can find common ground without sacrificing our principles."

Guinta says that as Manchester's mayor from 2006 through 2009, he "worked with Democrats and Republicans to improve the city" and, "together, we cut spending, lowered property taxes and improved services."

He calls for "reform" of Medicare and Social Security and for "economic policies that create opportunity and growth."

While Guinta talks about his service as mayor in the video, he does not mention that he is a former congressman.

"While some politicians always think bigger government is the answer, in New Hampshire, we know better," he said. "It's about putting people first."

Morgan Guinta calls her husband "a super dad" to their two children, "a great leader"and "great at listening and bringing people together to solve problems."

Guinta turns 43 on Thursday. He wants a "rubber match" next fall with Democrat U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, whom Guinta ousted from the House seat in 2010, only to have her return the favor in 2012.

Guinta is expected to first face a Republican primary. Political newcomer Dan Innis of Portsmouth last week said he will resign as dean of the Peter T. Paul School of Business and Economics at the University of New Hampshire. He is expected to announce his candidacy within the next several weeks.

Guinta was a strong supporter of the House Republican agenda during his term in office. As a member of the House Budget Committee, he was a supporter of budget committee chairman and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who was last year's party nominee for vice president.

Ryan will return to the Granite State in October to campaign for Guinta.

Democrats wasted no time criticizing Guinta.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Guinta "had an opportunity to stand up for his constituents, but instead he voted in lockstep with Paul Ryan and the Tea Party to try to end Medicare as we know it and raise taxes on New Hampshire's middle class families. Voters already fired Congressman Guinta for his attempts to impose his out-of-touch agenda, which hurt New Hampshire's economy and stifled job creation."

A Guinta spokesman declined to comment on the Democratic criticism.

----------

October 20, 2014

"Frank Guinta Admits He Still Wants to Cut Seniors’ Benefits: Tea Partier in Concord Monitor: Republican Congress Will Push Cuts"

MANCHESTER — Former Congressman Frank Guinta affirmed that he still plans to cut seniors’ benefits in an interview with the Concord Monitor last week, saying that “Republicans are going to want” to adopt a benefit-cutting measure, Chained CPI, in the next Congress.

“New Hampshire seniors beware: Frank Guinta has a plan to cut your earned benefits,” said Shea-Porter spokeswoman Marjorie Connolly. “Instead of ending tax breaks for Big Oil and huge corporations, Guinta would balance the budget on the backs of our seniors. His extreme Tea Party platform would not only punish seniors, but also the hardworking Granite Staters who pay into this system with the expectation that their earned benefits will be there when they need them.”

Disturbing facts about Guinta’s benefit-cutting proposal to adopt Chained CPI:

• Guinta’s proposal would hit beneficiaries harder as they age.
• Since women live longer than men and the cuts accelerate over time, women would be hit especially hard.
• Under Guinta’s proposal, a senior who retires at 65 would lose almost $14,000 by age 85, and $28,000 by age 95.
• By the time retirees reach 85, their benefits would be cut by an average of $1,147 per year.
• A 92-year-old would lose an entire month’s income from his or her annual benefits.
• Guinta’s proposal would cut almost 14 weeks’ worth of food from a 75-year-old’s budget, and almost 24 weeks of food from an 85-year-old’s budget.
• Even Guinta’s hyper-conservative pal Grover Norquist opposes the proposal, saying that it’s “a very large tax hike over time.”

Unlike Guinta, Carol Shea-Porter opposes the benefit-cutting chained CPI proposal, and successfully fought to eliminate it from President Obama’s budget proposal.

BACKGROUND

Concord Monitor: “He (Guinta) said Democrats are going to want to expand Social Security and Republicans are going to want so-called ‘chained CPI,’ which would adjust the formula used to determine cost-of-living increases in Social Security.”

Link: www.sheaporter.com/Media/Press-Releases/2014-10-frank-guinta-admits-he-still-wants-to-cut-seniors-be

----------

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Frank Guinta is in the pocket of Big Oil!

-

-

"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

----------

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Frank Guinta voted to strip all federal funding from Planned Parenthood

-

-

"Planned Parenthood running radio ads against Guinta"
By James Pindell, politicalscoop.wmur.com - February 21, 2011

After U.S. Congressman Frank Guinta (R-Manchester) voted to strip all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, the organization is running ads in New Hampshire this week targeting him.

The vote was on an amendment offered by Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. Since the 1970s, the federal government has had a ban on funding abortions directly. This bill would remove funding for women’s health and other services that are mainly geared to low income women.

----------

"War on women"
By Lucy Edwards, Northwood, NH
For the (Concord) Monitor, Letter, January 31, 2012

I wish the idea that there is a war on women going on was hyperbole, but I fear it isn't. I am annoyed not just at Frank Guinta, my congressman, but also at a great many others in what we used to call the Grand Old Party, the one my father belonged to and one that he would never recognize today. And "annoying" does not come close to describing what I see in the New Hampshire Legislature, in the presidential primary campaign and in Congress.

There's the war on Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire, in Congress and across the country. There's presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who says that a rape victim's pregnancy is a gift from God.

There's the attack on contraception, a practice which I think I can safely say is mainstream in our country and has been for decades.

Younger women than I would be well-advised to realize that when I was a teenager, contraception was illegal in my home state. It could be illegal again.

I don't know why we are targets for all this abuse. Some New Hampshire legislators think we have too much police protection when we are the victims of domestic assault, and would take us back to when beating your wife was, let's say, close-to-acceptable behavior.

Women outnumber men in our country, and we are your mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, neighbors. It's time for all of us, men and women, to stand up and say, "Enough!"

LUCY EDWARDS
Northwood, NH

----------

Frank Guinta Radically Corrupt and Extremely Anti-Woman

Named by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in 2011. According to CREW, Guinta “fudged the numbers and cooked the books to buy a seat in Congress,” including soliciting an illegal contribution from the Republican Governors Association. He is currently being investigated by the FEC for loans he made to his campaign. Guinta campaigned on overturning Roe V. Wade and has advocated a total ban abortion with no exceptions, not even to save the life of a woman. He was elected with Tea Party support from the Koch Brothers, Tea Party Express and Freedom Works, but in Congress, he wouldn’t even honor his promise to join Michelle Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus. He believes that Obama is trying to bring socialism to the US.

Source: http://bonjupatten.com/tag/frank-guinta/

----------

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Frank Guinta supports eliminating the Federal Reserve

-

-

"Guinta to question Fed Chair Bernanke"
By James Pindell, politicalscoop.wmur.com - February 9, 2011

Congressman Frank Guinta, who just last week was quoted as saying he supports the end of the Federal Reserve, will question Fed Chair Ben Bernanke at a committee hearing later today.

Bernanke will appear before the House Budget Committee that Guinta sits on.

Last week Guinta was quoted by Foster’s Daily Democrat as telling the Rochester 9/12 group when asked if he favored doing away with the Federal Reserve Board: “I would support eliminating the Fed.”

Friday, February 11, 2011

Frank Guinta voted to extend provisions of the Patriot Act

-

-

"Guinta, Bass back Patriot Act extension"
Examiner.com - February 10, 2011

U.S. Reps. Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass sided with efforts this week to extend provisions of the Patriot Act.

The two New Hampshire Republicans followed the lead of the GOP leadership in the House, but the effort to extend the act failed.

And it wasn’t because of the Democrats.

The more conservative bloc of Republicans were responsible for the failure to get the two-thirds super-majority necessary to extend the provisions.

Guinta, from the 1st Congressional District, and Bass, from the 2nd Congressional District, were among the 277 members who voted on Tuesday to reauthorize key parts of the counter-terrorism surveillance law, which expire at the end of the month.

Those voting no numbered 148, which left the measure seven votes short for passage because of the two-thirds requirement.

According to coverage of the vote by the Washington Post: “The vote was the latest signal … that on certain matters House leaders could face a sizable resistance to compromise from within their own ranks, both from the 87 GOP freshmen and from conservative veterans who have been emboldened by the newcomers.”

The House GOP leadership was considering a move to reconsider the measure later this month in a format that will require only a simple majority for passage.

----------

"Dan Innis with terrorists? A low blow from Frank Guinta"
NH Union Leader, EDITORIAL, July 25, 2014

With all of the national security revelations of the last year, it is a really lousy debate point to suggest that those who want to protect Americans from government surveillance are on the side of the terrorists.

In a debate on WGIR-AM on Wednesday morning, candidates for the Republican nomination for Congress in the 1st District got into a brief discussion of national security and civil liberties. Dan Innis brought up the issue, saying he would have voted against the Patriot Act because it violated the First, Second and Fourth amendments.

Former Rep. Frank Guinta, who in 2011 voted to extend the Patriot Act, responded forcefully. “Let me say, you either stand with the terrorists or you stand with freedom and protecting Americans,” he said.

We were a little surprised that Guinta did not follow his comment by pulling a bald eagle out of his suit jacket and playing a snippet of Lee Greenwood’s “I’m proud to be an American” on his smartphone. And how can one be against freedom by arguing that the law must not trample constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?

That kind of knee-jerk patriotism, a desperate effort to end debate (and thought) on a serious issue, is how we wound up with the current surveillance state, which ought to trouble everyone. That it does not appear to trouble Guinta is concerning.

For his part, Innis was playing some clever politics — just like a pro. After the Edward Snowden revelations, it is easy to say that the Patriot Act went way too far. But at the time things were not so clear.

Approaching 13 years after the Patriot Act’s passage, Congress has yet to strike the right balance between security and liberty. We need to keep debating this issue.

Suggesting that Americans who want stronger protections from government snooping “stand with the terrorists” is not helpful.

Comments:

July 25, 2014 -

CHRIS HERBERT said:

Innis represents a technocratic free market fundamentalist viewpoint that dominates not only Republicans but the nation generally. This version of Republican attempts to project a more centrist viewpoint in other areas, such as government violations of citizen privacy. Guinta is full on reactionary, a devotee of ideology untethered from the real world. Either way, the nation has suffered miserably because of both types. Guinta, as does Senator Ayotte, likes nothing better than fighting a war somewhere, without end. Innis likes the idea of corporations and their owners, owning the federal government; a situation described by FDR as empowering the super rich who consider our government as a 'mere extension of their private affairs.' Plutarch, more than 2,000 years ago warned that income inequality and a super rich upper class are 'fatal' to Republics. He was warning about people like Innis. It remains to be seen if the New Hampshire voter can resist the propaganda of the Kochtopus, the reactionary Union Leader, and a Republican primary full of people who behave as if the 19th century has returned. I sure hope so. It's a mistake to believe the crazies cannot take over our lives just because we're in America.

Ginger Ferrer said:

Amen to that. Although, surveillance of a kind is necessary to protect citizens against crime. As in bank camera's at an ATM. How many times have these camera's been able to reveal the criminal who stole or even killed a citizen and used their ATM card to empty out their bank accounts? How about traffic cam's who document a hit and run or other related infraction? It is a necessity of a kind. But not a total necessity in every aspect of a citizen's life.Like everything else in our country, the abuses are mounting with regard to the very necessary monitoring of the criminal mindset that is forever looking for a way to get away with their illegal acts.So it is sort of like a catch 22 issue. ****** if we do, ****** if we don't.

----------

Friday, January 28, 2011

Frank Guinta uses disrespectful rhetoric!

-

-

"Guinta needs to drop disrespectful rhetoric"
seacoastonline.com - January 27, 2011

Jan. 23 — To the Editor:

After the Tucson incident, many of our leaders called for less acrimonious debate. It was therefore disappointment that I read a Portsmouth Herald guest editorial on Sunday's paper.

U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., repeatedly cited "Obamacare" as his editorial target. To the credit of Seacoast Media Group, the editor's note referred to it by the proper title: Health Care Reform Act.

I submit the term "Obamacare" was and is a cheap shot at our president, one which was coined in the politically charged environment leading up to the mid-term elections. The strategy was to link anything you didn't like with the declining popularity of the president.

Isn't it time for Guinta and all the rest of the politicians to avoid the innuendos and deal from the top of the deck?

D. Lincoln
Kittery, Maine