Saturday, July 23, 2011

Sherrod Brown is at Least Sincere... at the Most a Champion of the Little Guy...

Thank you for getting in touch with me about the corporate tax code.
According to recent reports, certain companies have been able to operate within the law and take advantage of various loopholes and deductions to reduce their U.S. tax obligations and send jobs overseas.  It is frustrating to learn that companies making multi-billion dollar profits pay a lower tax rate than families earning $17,000 a year.
However, it is important to remember that what these companies are doing is legal under the tax code. That is why we need to reform the corporate tax code in a manner that simplifies the system and incentivizes the creation of jobs here at home.  If done right, corporate tax reform would broaden the tax base, increase government revenues, and reduce the deficit.
American workers can compete with people around the world if the federal government makes the needs of working families its priority.  However, if we fail to improve the tax code, corporations will continue to exploit the tax loopholes that help ship jobs overseas and exacerbate our nation’s fiscal situation.  
As the Senate considers reforms to the corporate tax code, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.  
Thank you for also getting in touch with me regarding proposals to reform Medicare.
Since the enactment of Medicare in 1965, Ohio’s seniors have no longer lived in fear of losing affordable, comprehensive health insurance when they retire.  Unfortunately, some in Congress want to dismantle Medicare in order to help offset the costs of tax cuts for the very wealthiest in our country.  I strongly oppose this proposal which is why I authored a letter (  signed by 49 of my Senate colleagues expressing our strong opposition of this plan.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan recently unveiled his chamber’s 2012 budget proposal.  This proposal would end Medicare as we know it and throw seniors into the private market with nothing more than an insufficient voucher to offset the rising cost of private health insurance.  So-called “premium support” — giving  seniors a voucher of approximately $8,000, as proposed by the Ryan budget — is a reckless and irresponsible way to address the health care needs of older Americans.  And it is an unacceptable means by which to finance tax cuts for those who are earning ten times or more than the retirement income of the average Medicare recipient.  
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in the first year of the voucher program under the Ryan budget, out-of-pocket expenses for seniors would double under the plan adopted by the House majority to more than $12,500 annually.  For seniors on a fixed income, a doubling of out-of-pocket expenses is simply unaffordable, particularly when the average Social Security benefit inOhio is only $14,000 per year.  Worse yet, under the proposal, the annual increase for the vouchers will fall short of the actual rate of inflation for health care — meaning out-of-pocket expenses for seniors will continue to soar.
To make matters worse, this budget would repeal the health care reform law that will save $1.3 trillion dollars over the next 20 years according to the CBO.   Such a repeal would also stop in its tracks the effort to close the Medicare Part D coverage gap know as the “donut hole.”  This year, seniors in the “donut hole” are receiving half off brand name prescription medication and will receive increases in the discount each year until the “donut hole” is closed in 2020.  The Ryan Budget ends this fix and would leave seniors in the “donut hole” footing the bill.  The average senior in the “donut hole” would incur an additional $11,794 between 2012 and 2020 in prescription drug costs.  Now is not the time to be adding to seniors’ financial burden.
While deficit reduction is essential, balancing the budget by dismantling Medicare is both unfair to hard-working Americans and counterproductive.  If Medicare is turned into a voucher system and the health reform law is dismantled, millions of seniors will be left underinsured or uninsured.  This will add to the burden on our nation’s already overwhelmed emergency rooms and result in increased demands on Medicaid as seniors exhaust their life savings.  
Before the passage of Medicare, only half of America’s seniors had health insurance, and most of those with insurance only had coverage for inpatient hospital costs.  Now, only 1.8 percent lack health coverage and less than 9 percent live below the poverty line. We cannot afford to reverse these gains through the ultimate form of rationing health care for seniors: the replacement of Medicare as we know it.  The cost of these “savings” — for seniors and their families and taxpayers who will have the costs shifted on to them — is far too high.   Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me.
Finally, thank you for getting in touch with me about Social Security reform.
While I understand concerns regarding the future of the program, I believe it is imperative that Social Security continues to remain strong for the well-being of our nation’s middle-class.
Social Security provides a vital safety net for approximately 55 million Americans, including more than 2 million Ohioans.  Reducing benefit levels or raising the retirement age for Social Security eligibility would pull the rug out from under Americans who have shaped their retirement planning around their earned Social Security benefits.  
The Social Security Trust Fund faces a long-term fiscal challenge that will require bipartisan dialogue.  Rather than reducing benefit levels that would cause undue financial hardship on hardworking men and women, we should seek alternatives to ensuring the solvency of the Trust Fund such as reviewing the level of the cap on taxable income.  It is also important to place Social Security in the context of our economic recovery and subsequent economic goals.  Job creation in the U.S. is crucial to stabilizing the Social Security the trust fund, which is one of many reasons our nation must review its trade and manufacturing policies to ensure we are positioned for success in the 21st century global economy.
I appreciate your concerns regarding this issue, and should Congress undertake legislation relating to Social Security I will certainly keep your views in mind.  
Thank you again for being in touch with me.
                         Sherrod Brown
                         United States Senator

Friday, July 22, 2011

A Voice of Reason: Letter from Steve LaTourette

Thank you for contacting me about the debt ceiling debate. As you can imagine, little else is being worked on by the Congress and the President as we approach August 2nd, the date the Treasury tells us the United States will run out of cash.
The ongoing discussions have both great promise and great peril: peril, due to the impact that default by the U.S. would have on the cost of money in the future; promise because this crisis has created a once-in-a-generation chance to put the country’s economic future on a stable path. I apologize for the length of this response, however, there are a number of misconceptions about this issue and I want to be as clear as I can be.
I have recently been briefed by a number of experts about what happens if we take no action on the debt ceiling. The most informative one, to my mind, was prepared by the Bipartisan Policy Center and can be found at That analysis reveals that the date the U.S. runs out of cash and will be required to pay bills as money comes in is August 2nd (slides 5-6). There is no precedent for what would happen next but slide 11 indicates that the government would have to prioritize among 80 million payments. Slide 13 shows that income for August would be $172B and bills $306B for a deficit of $134B.
The severity of that situation is clearly illustrated in slides 14-19, where the Bipartisan Center lays out 2 proposed scenarios of what could be paid and what wouldn’t be paid. In addition, the credit rating agencies, Standard & Poors, et al., have indicated that a failure to pay all of our bills would result in an increase in the cost of financing the debt we already owe. Many of us who bought our first house in the 1980’s can vividly recall 15% interest rates and even a modest rise in what the U.S. pays as an interest rate can wipe out trillions in any savings a deal would achieve(slide 36).
All of which brings us to what should we do about it. Obviously, a default by the U.S. cannot be permitted. That being said, the magnitude of the debt crisis demands that a transformational solution be crafted that puts the country on a path to financial health. Some have suggested that the President simply be given an additional authority to borrow another $2Trillion without any spending cuts or revenue increases. I reject that approach.
The Speaker, John Boehner, is working with the Administration to craft what is being called the ‘big deal’. That deal would only allow additional borrowing if spending is reduced in an amount greater than the new debt. Further, through eliminating loopholes, tax simplification and broadening the base of taxpayers, revenue would be increased without the class warfare demagoguery. I support the Speaker’s work to achieve this bigger agreement, as it represents our best hope to not, again, kick this problem down the road to our kids and grandkids. Obviously, my support of any proposal will depend on the details of that proposal.
I very much appreciate you contacting me regarding this matter and as events continue to develop please feel free to share your thoughts on what you see and hear. Thankfully, the new rules of the House require that any ‘deal’ be available for 72 hours online before it comes to a vote and I welcome your thoughts when that occurs.
Very truly yours,
Steven C. LaTourette
Member of Congress

Monday, July 18, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul's Straight Talk

Debt Ceiling DramaPDFPrintE-mail
The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.
First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable.  In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks.  Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away.  The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008.  The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally.  Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government's policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of "bracket creep."  This is a default.  Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn't count.
Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable.  For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes.  But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough.  The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household.  A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip.  This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.
Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out.  In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays.  The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere.  It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing.  This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether. 
We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes.  We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem.  We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home.  We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery.  And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work. 

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Letter to Congressman and U.S. Senators

Thank you for your dedication and service to our Congressional district.  We are lucky to have someone like you as our Congressman.

As you are well aware, the budget talks are an issue of concern.

Your common sense approach has always been to seek reasonable compromise. Like cutting government programs which demonstrate little or no success, and reforming entitlement programs so they are sustainable and more importantly address the original goal and purpose. Also, please consider some fundamental changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  The later was originally intended to supplement retirement income, and it has become something much different.  When Medicare and Medicaid can be delivered at a reasonable cost savings with improved levels of service, then changes should be considered.  A common goal should be to encourage family friendly behaviors, and not reward anti-social nor counter-productive actions for the individual.

Also, we should remember that tax cuts established under Reagan have been the original source of our deficit. Loop holes favoring the rich and corporations should be closed.  Let's face it, the well to do already have enough help available with the tax code. It would only make sense to eliminate excessive favoritism which is generally not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

I am available to discuss one or any of the proposals mentioned in this letter.

Your Respectful Constituent,

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Kasich's Red Herring: SB5 on Healthcare

Red Herring:   The reader's suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected. 

O.K.  I smelled something fishy!  Yesterday on the Morning Joe, our esteemed Governor Kasich made an appearance tauting his first six months in office.  He claimed to be a "get-it-done" type governor. After all, Kasich was elected because people did not feel Strickland was moving the state in the right direction fast enough.  Yet, when questioned about his low approval rating (most polls have him rated in the 30% positive category) , Kasich simply suggested that the polls are not accurate.

Kasich suggested that Ohio has reigned in government spending with no new taxes.  He moved on using his anti-union rhetoric against Ohio's public workers.  Interestingly enough, Kasich cited one small part of the 500 page SB 5 legislation.  He claimed that Ohio's public employees average 6% health care premiums while private sector employees pay 23%.  Kasich said everyone should pay the same amount for healthcare. Here Kasich is attempting to mislead viewers with this red herring comment:

1.  Public employees do not average 6% health care premiums.
2.  Public employees average less compensation than private counter-parts...and it is sometimes made up by favorable healthcare premiums.
3.  Instead of higher compensation, public employers have found it more cost-effective to keep health care premiums lower instead for employees.
4.  If there is an issue with premiums, public employees would be willing to sit down and NEGOTIATE a different contract.  

John Kasich successfully utilizes the red herring persuasion technique.  Instead of discussing what SB 5 really does to public employees, and the labor unions which support them, Kasich creates a false argument based on a faulty premise...  Smart...Creative... But highly inaccurate. But then again I do not think Kasich has risen to his political position by accident, and he is banking on half-truths to rule the day in his attempt to balance the state budget on the backs of Ohio's local government.

The question is, why didn't John Kasich come clean and tell viewers what SB 5 is really designed to do?

SB5 on Healthcare

Yesterday on the Morning Joe, our esteemed Governor Kasich made an appearance tauting his first six months in office.  He had claimed to be a "get-it-done" type governor. After all, Kasich was elected because people did not feel Strickland was moving the state in the right direction fast enough.  Yet, when questioned about his low approval rating (most polls have him rated in the 30% positive category) , Kasich simply suggested that the polls are not accurate.

Kasich suggested that Ohio has reigned in government spending with no new taxes.  He moved on using his anti-union rhetoric against Ohio's public workers.  Interestingly enough, Kasich cited one small part of the 500 page SB 5 legislation.  He claimed that Ohio's public employees average 6% healthcare premiums while private sector employees pay 23%.  Clearly Kasich is attempting to mislead viewers with this comment:
1.  Public employees do not average 6% healthcare premiums.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Koch Brothers and Their Products... Helping Them Hurts You!!!

Delegates requested information regarding the Koch Brothers and their products – there are two links provided below.
Rachel Maddow Video link contained here provides a summary

Koch Products & Companies Include:
- Angel Soft
- Angel Soft Ultra
- Brawny paper towels
- Dixie cups (& napkins & plates)
- Insular cups
- Perfect Touch cups, paper products
- Quilted Northern
- Sparkle paper towels
- Stainmaster
- Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
- Mardis Gras napkins
- Zee Napkins
- Georgia Pacific products

Home/Office papers:
- Advantage
- Image Plus
- SpectrumOther:
- Stainmaster
- Lycra
- Teflon
Building supplies:
- Georgia Pacific

- Holiday Companies <

Friday, July 8, 2011

Merit Pay and the Radical SB5 Agenda: Cowboy Kasich

What's the Difference?

Although John Kasich won the Governorship of Ohio by a mere 70,000 votes, he and his Radical Republican cronies are blazing a trail to oblivion.  Although I am proud to say I didn't vote for him!  I have always considered myself a a right-leaning independent. However, Kasich's agenda has me and many other independents heading squarely into the Democratic camp.

Senate Bill 5 is nothing less than union busting. While it squarely attacks anyone and everyone who is affiliated with Ohio public employees, it unfairly targets educators. While most of SB5 will be heading to the November ballot, it is imperative we look at one issue that will make or break public education.  It is called MERIT PAY.

Merit Pay has a warm and fuzzy sound to it.  Everyone should get paid on their efforts and ability to help kids. Kids take a test, and teachers get paid accordingly. Good teachers get rewarded and bad teachers get fired or quit.  Sounds easy enough right? But most teachers do not go into education for the money. They go into education to help make the world a better place. This is something that Kasich (a former Lehman Brothers fat cat) and his Republican cronies just don't get. Please don't send public education the way of Lehman Brothers!

The Merit Pay argument is based on a basic fallacy.  The current system is not broken.  Longevity pay is written into every school district's master agreement. There is a basic assumption that a teacher should get better with each year. That, the more experience a teacher has, the more able that teacher will be able to help kids. This guarantees that a teacher will be able to afford the state mandated masters degree, and even allows teachers to do crazy things like buy cars and houses since there is a reliable source of income.
(Outhwaite Public Housing, Cleveland, Ohio)
 Public Education could very well be the country's greatest social experiment. Thomas Jefferson would have it no other way because he realized that our democracy was founded on a well-educated population. That an educated population will be able to embrace the freedoms of a nation such as ours.  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89) Kasich and the Radical Republican agenda would have voters believe that the schools are failing. This is not true. And I can honestly say that teachers who work in urban areas hold a special place in society's heart. To think that these educators work with children who are often under-privileged, and children who are over-exposed to a world of crime and violence is not much less than missionary work. That is not to mention that many of these educators have to park their cars inside barb wire fences, walk through metal detectors, and work with children who receive free breakfast and free lunch. Those teachers are one of the only positive influences in that child's life.

Kasich would have you believe that his political contributors such as Dave Brennan of White Hat Management would have the answer with charter schools. Although statistics suggest that most charter schools are failing to serve the children. But Brennan has gained the Republican's ear because he is dishing out campaign contributions and buying votes.

I would implore every reader to vote against SB5 this November.  Please spread the word! 

Sunday, July 3, 2011


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
   Button Gwinnett
   Lyman Hall
   George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
   William Hooper
   Joseph Hewes
   John Penn
South Carolina:
   Edward Rutledge
   Thomas Heyward, Jr.
   Thomas Lynch, Jr.
   Arthur Middleton
Column 3
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
   Robert Morris
   Benjamin Rush
   Benjamin Franklin
   John Morton
   George Clymer
   James Smith
   George Taylor
   James Wilson
   George Ross
   Caesar Rodney
   George Read
   Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
   William Floyd
   Philip Livingston
   Francis Lewis
   Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
   Richard Stockton
   John Witherspoon
   Francis Hopkinson
   John Hart
   Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
   Josiah Bartlett
   William Whipple
   Samuel Adams
   John Adams
   Robert Treat Paine
   Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
   Stephen Hopkins
   William Ellery
   Roger Sherman
   Samuel Huntington
   William Williams
   Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
   Matthew Thornton