Aitken: The Truth About the Budget - It's YOUR Money!

As you may know, there is a special election in Bedford for State Rep to be held on September 7 to fill the seat that was occupied by the late Dave Danielson.

Hon. Linda Camarota (R) and Catherine Rombeau (D) are the two candidates.

Recently, many households in Bedford received a letter from Bedford Rep Sue Mullen (D) which described legislation the Republicans in Concord had passed as the 'worst in history' without citing specific bills.

The truth is the Republican Budget is GOOD FOR NH and BEDFORD. However, Mullen's statements do not tell the whole story and are therefore extremely misleading. Here are a few I'd like to address...

Mullen states as one reason the budget is bad is that it contains "Tax breaks for businesses that downshift the cost communities."

There is NO cost downshift to communities. We find it interesting that Democrats are not fighting other tax breaks that favor CERTAIN businesses which allow them to develop high-density housing that won't pay taxes for 9 years, and which WILL downshift the cost to the taxpayers. AND, according to the town records, I am told even when these projects do pay taxes, they NEVER pay their fair share compared to the services they use.

We submitted a question to Ms. Rombeau about preserving local control but received a very confusing response. When asked for clarification specifically mentioning the Housing Appeals Board, (state appointees who can override any town board) we got no reply.

Here is what she said:

"I support local control as well as checks and balances, especially as appointed positions at the local or state level can introduce their own complications."

Wait, does this mean that those who serve on our local boards might have agendas and therefore the state must intervene and override them with something like the Housing Appeals Board? It's true that we've had people serving who have had agendas, they have even been rewarded with the position because of those agendas, but shouldn't what the boards do be directed by the vote of the townspeople? What "checks and balances" is she referring to?

She went on to say:

"(That being said, I am well aware of how challenging it can be to round up enough volunteers for local positions!). Having sat on the Zoning Board for a period of time, I recognize the nature of its quasi-judicial role, and the importance of protecting the integrity of that role."

So if she wants to protect the integrity of the role of local boards, what "oversight" does she recommend? Does it sound like she is advocating two opposite things -- "oversight" (perhaps by HAB-type boards) or preserving the town vote, implemented by their local boards?

Perhaps someone else can ask her directly if she supports the HAB and the Governor's socialistic housing plan.

This is the kind of double-speak we often get from politicians who want to remain non-committal on an issue so that they can appeal to those of either opinion. We are not surprised at her answer, since during her tenure as Town Councilor, we noticed that it was hard to figure out where she stood on many issues.

Back to the finger-pointing on the budget, Mullen said another reason it was bad was that it allowed for "School vouchers to pay for religious and private education." People pay taxes to the government to run schools. If parents do not like how or what those schools are teaching, they have the right to send their children to the schools of their choice. Why should they continue to pay for schools that are substandard or teaching political agendas? Nothing has happened to the public schools as a result of allowing people to choose, and in fact, the competition just makes them better. Students in 'religious' schools can opt out of religious education classes, they are not required. Many students opt out when they attend a school that is not of their own denomination. (For example, many of my friends who were not Catholic, attended Central Catholic High School.)

Mullen stated that the budget allows for "The restriction of free speech".

How about the "rest" of the story? Free speech has NOT been restricted, but anti-bias laws have been strengthened. We assume this statement refers to the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" which teaches that you are automatically a racist simply by nature of your birth. Why would we want to teach our children they were born racists because of their color or nationality? That in and of itself is racist. Therefore, the legislation does NOT restrict teaching ABOUT racism, it restricts teaching racism.

Please read more about how the Republican Budget will REDUCE TAXES and how it will HELP BEDFORD:

http://bedfordrepublicans.org/...
http://bedfordrepublicans.org/...

Please vote for Linda Camarota on September 7, 2021.

She'll protect your interests in Concord AND in your home town.

[Note: This is a personal endorsement and is not authorized by the candidate or her campaign]