We would like to submit an opinion about New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu’s veto of House Bill 365, which addressed net energy metering limits for customer generators. This legislation, which originally passed with a Republican majority in the state Legislature, would have raised the capacity for solar production in the state. It is hard to imagine, in this era of global climate change, that anyone would not be in favor of expanding green energy.
The governor’s disposition on this may rest with the fact that, according to Catherine Corkery, chapter director and field organizer for the New Hampshire Chapter of the Sierra Club, the fossil fuel industry and utilities like Eversource have given more than $100,000 to Sununu’s campaigns and his inaugural fund.
And so it is that politics works.
We installed solar energy last autumn here in Claremont. To date, our electric bill has plummeted and, according to our electronic tracker, the energy we have produced, used and sold back to Eversource is the equivalent of 6,454 pounds of CO2 emissions prevented, and 163 trees planted, and we have just moved into the peak production months of the year.
Our average bill for our home and an attached apartment used to be $150 per month. Since February, the largest bill we have seen has been $37, with two months of no bill at all — and this with an exceptionally cloudy April and May.
It is unthinkable that the governor would prevent people, schools, communities, etc., from installing solar if they chose because … he takes money from the fossil fuel industry? He likes the idea of a warmer New Hampshire? Ignorance? Please contact your representatives and ask them to override this veto.
MICHAEL and MARGARET SARACINO
Claremont
In your editorial citing Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a tax on the wealth of America’s richest people (“A primary of substance: Warren’s detailed proposals set stage for a policy-focused campaign,” June 16) you didn’t mention that many of your readers already pay a wealth tax. It’s called the property tax.
Homes are the bulk of most people’s wealth. And because most people have mortgages, they are paying wealth taxes on a lot more wealth than they actually own. Renters are in even worse shape. Their rent pays the property taxes of their landlords, so they are paying a wealth tax even though they own none of that wealth at all.
Meanwhile, the homes of many of the people with more than $50 million — the people whose wealth Warren proposes to tax — amount to a small fraction of their wealth. So they are taxed on only the small fraction of their wealth represented by their homes. Consider an Upper Valley family that buys a home for $200,000, paying 20% down. They own only $40,000, but they are taxed on the whole $200,000. They pay a wealth tax on five times as much wealth as they own.
Now consider a family with $50 million in household assets, living in a mansion worth $5 million. They pay a wealth tax on only one-tenth of what they own. Under Warren’s proposal, their tax bill would not rise, because she proposes to tax only the assets in excess of $50 million. But wealthier families would pay a tax on the portion of their assets above $50 million.
If it is OK to tax ordinary people on wealth they don’t even own, how could it possibly be wrong to tax billionaires and multimillionaires on just a part of their wealth?
RICHARD ANDREWS
Springfield Vt.
Nearly all of the Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination hold elected offices. They include senators, congressmen, governors and mayors. I cannot help wonder if the people who elected them to represent their states or congressional districts or govern a state or city are concerned that they are not doing the jobs for which they were elected. Worse, they are collecting salaries paid for by taxpayers who have no choice about paying taxes.
Perhaps those with elected offices should step down, campaign full time, and make way for more focused, dedicated “civil servants.”
DENNIS E. LOGUE
Enfield
I intend no neglect on the point of George Sutherland’s reflections of D-Day (“How quickly he forgot,” June 16) when I expound on my memory as a lifelong student of the Second World War.
Though a patriot of the French people, French President Charles de Gaulle was notoriously crass and widely known to possess very little in the way of verbal diplomacy. I recall in my reading a postwar visit by de Gaulle to Stalingrad at the behest of Soviet Gen. Georgy Zhukov to review the scene of the struggle. It is written that as the two generals were on the platform overlooking this vast battlefield, de Gaulle suddenly opined something to the effect that, “an amazing people were here.” The proud Russian, chest full of medals and proudly puffed up, thanked the tactless de Gaulle. A reportedly befuddled de Gaulle quickly brought down the house by declaring, “No, I mean the Germans. To have pushed this far.”
De Gaulle was a clear candidate for a Dale Carnegie course. Thanks to George Sutherland for opening the memory door.
DONALD B. PERRON
Lebanon
Before we get involved in an armed conflict with Iran, let’s make sure we aren’t being sold a bill of goods. We’ve been down this road before, people.
BARRY WENIG
Lebanon