It appears the deck has been cleared for former controversial state Sen. William Aniskovich, 48, to become the next chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party. His emergence, as the front runner to succeed Chris Healy - the election for new chair is later this month - has set off a firestorm.
Nancy DiNardo, chairwoman of the state Democrat Party, sent out a release, Wednesday, reminding everyone of Anikovich's ties to the corrupt Rowland administration. Then, Hartford Courant columnist and former state Sen. Kevin Rennie blew the lid off the story, writing what many people have known for years, that Aniskovich made Rep. Anthony Weiner look like a choir boy, when he served in the state senate. Aniskovich admitted to Rennie that he cheated on his wife, Jennifer, who received a plum job from then Gov. John Rowland to head the state tourism department. Meanwhile, DiNardo was reminding everyone about the numerous fines Aniskovich's senate campaign had received, in addition to his relationship to the corrupt Rowland.
However, it's Aniskovich's sexual peccadilloes and sweetheart deals his business received from then Gov. Rowland, that has Democrats salivating over his possible election. Aniskovich's mental health and substance abuse clinic in Stonington, received numerous state contracts, while Rowland was governor.
Aniskovich claims his playboy days are over, his wife has forgiven him and he now has a strong marriage. He also told Rennie his clinic no longer does business with the state, but the ever persistent Rennie did some research and discovered his Stonington Institute still holds two contracts with the state.
Meanwhile, I am told former congressman and defeated U.S. Senate candidate Rob Simmons and former GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley have emerged as kingmakers, pushing the Aniskovich candidacy, by cutting deals with several candidates, who have "suddenly" dropped out of the race. Simmons told the Courant, "It's really too bad we have to go back seven, eight, nine 10 years to make a judgement about somebody..." A laughable comment, when you consider Simmons was willing to reach back longer than that, when sabotaging Linda McMahon's senate candidacy.
Supporters say Aniskovich has the talent to "articulate Republican principles." Apparently family values aren't among them. Rather than unite the Republican Party, the choice of Aniskovich will serve to split it even more. And the argument that "we have all made mistakes" doesn't cut it. Yes, only Aniskovich and his wife know what their marriage is, but life's hard lessons, do exclude a person's past from certain occupations. An Aniskovich chairmanship would serve as a reminder of a Republican Party's corrupt past, under the felonious and polarizing Rowland.
Say what you want about Healy, but the party did make some inroads under his leadership in state and municipal elections. The GOP has come too far to be rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titantic.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
WELCOME TO THE PORTA POTTY STATE
Now Dannel 88 has really gone and done it. He's taken away our rest areas, and it even has some Democrats, crossing their legs in disgust. It seems the Democrats, who voted for the Governor's budget to see what was in it, are now finding out that among the Governor's "cuts" in a budget that increases spending by $1B, is the closing of rest areas not operated by commercial enterprises. The first to go will be the Willington rest areas on both sides of I-84, closing July 1st. The measure will save the state a whopping $400,000. Have to replenish those EBT cards to preserve the safety net, you know.
Even Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, is in a snit. The co-chair of the General Assembly's Transportation committee says the proposal was never put to his panel by the governor's people. Apparently he was one of those who voted "yes" on the budget bill, before reading it.
Michael Riley, the head of the Motor Transport Association, a group representing truckers, is also befuddled, saying the governor can spend millions on a Hartford-New Britain busway that very few people will use, but is willing to shutdown a rest area on I-84 at which 50,000 motor vehicles will stop, during the July 4th weekend.
Borrowing on Republican Sen. Michael McLachlen's idea that Connecticut needs to change it's moniker from the "Constitution State," because Democrats have steered the state so far to the left, Dannel 88's rest area crackdown has now set up numerous name-change possibilities. Perhaps we can become the "Porta Potty State." Obviously we will need one, while driving that stretch of I-84 on our way to "freedom" in Massachusetts. Or maybe the "Constipation State" might work. It will be a fitting condition in which to be, while traversing I-84.
I suspect, Dannel 88 will mysteriously find the money and keep the rest areas open, allowing he and his fellow liberals to appear as if they have "heard the public." Meanwhile, they will have hoodwinked us into the largest tax hike in Connecticut history, come July 1st.
For now, however, the rest area closures have given new meaning to "hold it, until the pike," or "are we there yet."
Even Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, is in a snit. The co-chair of the General Assembly's Transportation committee says the proposal was never put to his panel by the governor's people. Apparently he was one of those who voted "yes" on the budget bill, before reading it.
Michael Riley, the head of the Motor Transport Association, a group representing truckers, is also befuddled, saying the governor can spend millions on a Hartford-New Britain busway that very few people will use, but is willing to shutdown a rest area on I-84 at which 50,000 motor vehicles will stop, during the July 4th weekend.
Borrowing on Republican Sen. Michael McLachlen's idea that Connecticut needs to change it's moniker from the "Constitution State," because Democrats have steered the state so far to the left, Dannel 88's rest area crackdown has now set up numerous name-change possibilities. Perhaps we can become the "Porta Potty State." Obviously we will need one, while driving that stretch of I-84 on our way to "freedom" in Massachusetts. Or maybe the "Constipation State" might work. It will be a fitting condition in which to be, while traversing I-84.
I suspect, Dannel 88 will mysteriously find the money and keep the rest areas open, allowing he and his fellow liberals to appear as if they have "heard the public." Meanwhile, they will have hoodwinked us into the largest tax hike in Connecticut history, come July 1st.
For now, however, the rest area closures have given new meaning to "hold it, until the pike," or "are we there yet."
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Did Malloy Bet On The Wrong Horse?
Governor Dannel P. Malloy's handpicked choice to run the state Department of Environmental Protection, Daniel Esty, is at it again. You remember our environmentally conscience commissioner, who was apparently for higher gasoline prices, before he was against them?
The commissioner, who told Talk of Connecticut legendary talk show host Brad Davis, he never advocated for higher gasoline prices, even though he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times and was quoted in a New Haven Register story as telling high students prices should be higher, "Let's make people pay for the harm they cause," in the same interview touted natural gas as the way to go. "The big opportunity we have, that has emerged in the last couple of years, is increased natural gas; huge new supplies of natural gas, which I think people are going after. It's one of the reasons we are going to see electric rates coming down in the state of Connecticut. We're going to buy more of this cheap natural gas, which is the major source of electricity, beyond nuclear power in this state.
"So you should expect to see electric rates coming down over the course of this year, in part because of access to these new American natural gas supplies."
So confident was the commissioner in his belief, he repeated the comment to Davis.
Now comes word in the latest edition of the Hartford Business Journal, electricity prices in Connecticut will skyrocket this summer. The reason? The price spike in natural gas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission predicts a 22 percent increase in our electricity rates in New England, with Connecticut's likely to be higher. Worse, other costs that drive electricity price spikes have not gone up. FERC blames the exorbitant hike in our rates solely on the increase in natural gas prices, the same "cheap" natural gas Commissioner Esty predicts will lower our prices.
One can only hope Esty doesn't make a pick in next week's Belmont Stakes. What has become patently obvious is that Dannel 88 has bet on the wrong horse to lead our DEP.
The commissioner, who told Talk of Connecticut legendary talk show host Brad Davis, he never advocated for higher gasoline prices, even though he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times and was quoted in a New Haven Register story as telling high students prices should be higher, "Let's make people pay for the harm they cause," in the same interview touted natural gas as the way to go. "The big opportunity we have, that has emerged in the last couple of years, is increased natural gas; huge new supplies of natural gas, which I think people are going after. It's one of the reasons we are going to see electric rates coming down in the state of Connecticut. We're going to buy more of this cheap natural gas, which is the major source of electricity, beyond nuclear power in this state.
"So you should expect to see electric rates coming down over the course of this year, in part because of access to these new American natural gas supplies."
So confident was the commissioner in his belief, he repeated the comment to Davis.
Now comes word in the latest edition of the Hartford Business Journal, electricity prices in Connecticut will skyrocket this summer. The reason? The price spike in natural gas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission predicts a 22 percent increase in our electricity rates in New England, with Connecticut's likely to be higher. Worse, other costs that drive electricity price spikes have not gone up. FERC blames the exorbitant hike in our rates solely on the increase in natural gas prices, the same "cheap" natural gas Commissioner Esty predicts will lower our prices.
One can only hope Esty doesn't make a pick in next week's Belmont Stakes. What has become patently obvious is that Dannel 88 has bet on the wrong horse to lead our DEP.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Our Techno-savvy Governor
Governor Dannel P. Malloy's anti-business budget won't take effect, until July 1, but already the fallout has begun. Upset that the budget will tax Internet sales, Overstock.com is withdrawing from Connecticut's online market. Those, who get hurt, however, are the Connecticut entrepreneurs, who turned a buck with their Internet business savvy.
People from Connecticut, whose websites linked to Overstock, would receive a commission from Overstock, if business was generated from their website. Thanks to Dannel 88's budget, Overstock will now be taxed for those sales. So they are leaving the state, drying up another income source for the state's people.
What does this all mean? Well, the Connecticut Internet entrepreneur, unless their name was Timothy Geithner, presumably reported income made from these transactions. The state will no longer receive that income tax. And Overstock, along with others, is now withdrawing their business from Connecticut.
Dannel 88's reaction to this action? "I have never purchased anything from Overstock personally and I am not all that familiar with how much business they are doing in the state, to tell you the truth," he told the Republican-American. This from the governor who wants to attract high tech jobs to the state and proclaims "Connecticut is open for business." Meanwhile, those people with the ability to earn money from the Internet are penalized, thanks to the largest tax hike in Connecticut history.
What the Overstock story exemplifies, even if Dannel 88 has "never purchased anything from" them, is that the exodus has begun, as predicted by those intelligent enough to critically assess Dannel 88's budget. And it isn't even June.
People from Connecticut, whose websites linked to Overstock, would receive a commission from Overstock, if business was generated from their website. Thanks to Dannel 88's budget, Overstock will now be taxed for those sales. So they are leaving the state, drying up another income source for the state's people.
What does this all mean? Well, the Connecticut Internet entrepreneur, unless their name was Timothy Geithner, presumably reported income made from these transactions. The state will no longer receive that income tax. And Overstock, along with others, is now withdrawing their business from Connecticut.
Dannel 88's reaction to this action? "I have never purchased anything from Overstock personally and I am not all that familiar with how much business they are doing in the state, to tell you the truth," he told the Republican-American. This from the governor who wants to attract high tech jobs to the state and proclaims "Connecticut is open for business." Meanwhile, those people with the ability to earn money from the Internet are penalized, thanks to the largest tax hike in Connecticut history.
What the Overstock story exemplifies, even if Dannel 88 has "never purchased anything from" them, is that the exodus has begun, as predicted by those intelligent enough to critically assess Dannel 88's budget. And it isn't even June.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Did DEP Commissioner Dupe Radio Audience?
Governor Dannel Malloy's handpicked choice to lead the Department of Environmental Protection, Commissioner Daniel Esty, is either playing fast and loose with the truth, or was for higher gasoline prices, before he was against them. Whatever, he was not being true to the audience of my colleague, Brad Davis, during the Brad Davis radio broadcast Thursday morning, heard on five radio stations across the state of Connecticut. Esty, a true believer in global warming, has been making the rounds, advocating higher gasoline prices, saying, "Let's make people pay for the harm they cause." It lead to the following exchange on the legendary Davis' broadcast:
Davis: A state senator told me, and I had trouble believing it to tell you the truth, that you made the comment, recently, that you thought gasoline prices should be hire than they are?
Esty: Totally untrue.
Davis: Thank you. I couldn't believe it.
Esty: That's a crazy suggestion.
Davis: But have you heard that?
Esty: The New York Times put a crazy headline on something that I wrote. Of course, I didn't say that. I would never support it. I support cheap energy. A different energy future, where we are not vulnerable to these kind of price spikes, that are causing real pain for all of us.
In reality, Esty not only is promoting higher gasoline prices, he said it and he wrote it in the New York Times article he is now attempting to throw under the bus - electric powered, I would imagine.
Last Monday, appearing before the Common Ground High School, a charter school in New Haven, the DEP Commissioner lambasted the oil industry to impression-minded students. New Haven Register reporter, Abbe Smith, who covered the commissioner's appearance, also wrote: "And he (Esty) told the students about an opinion piece he co-wrote for the New York Times last month that advocated for the establishment of a carbon emissions charge that would translate to higher gas prices for Americans. He said the purpose of the emissions charge is relatively simple: It would incentivize a shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. 'Let's make people pay for the harm they cause,' he said."
And in that now famous NYT piece, Esty not only touted a carbon emissions charge, he wrote, "An emissions charge is not a radical idea; making people pay for the harm they cause lies at the heart of property rights.
"Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included. Oil companies would pay for every gallon of gas or oil delivered. Yes, these costs could be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments."
And now the Commissioner is claiming he never advocated for higher gasoline prices? His doublespeak may be why Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington told me on my radio show last week, "In Dan Esty, we've got a very smart, very articulate and very dangerous man, a real idealogue, a real left wing, aggressive person, that has a vision, which is anti-growth, anti-consumer, anti, let's say the structure of American society."
The Commissioner not only needs to come clean on his verbal emission, he needs to apologize for duping a radio audience and its legendary broadcaster.
Davis: A state senator told me, and I had trouble believing it to tell you the truth, that you made the comment, recently, that you thought gasoline prices should be hire than they are?
Esty: Totally untrue.
Davis: Thank you. I couldn't believe it.
Esty: That's a crazy suggestion.
Davis: But have you heard that?
Esty: The New York Times put a crazy headline on something that I wrote. Of course, I didn't say that. I would never support it. I support cheap energy. A different energy future, where we are not vulnerable to these kind of price spikes, that are causing real pain for all of us.
In reality, Esty not only is promoting higher gasoline prices, he said it and he wrote it in the New York Times article he is now attempting to throw under the bus - electric powered, I would imagine.
Last Monday, appearing before the Common Ground High School, a charter school in New Haven, the DEP Commissioner lambasted the oil industry to impression-minded students. New Haven Register reporter, Abbe Smith, who covered the commissioner's appearance, also wrote: "And he (Esty) told the students about an opinion piece he co-wrote for the New York Times last month that advocated for the establishment of a carbon emissions charge that would translate to higher gas prices for Americans. He said the purpose of the emissions charge is relatively simple: It would incentivize a shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. 'Let's make people pay for the harm they cause,' he said."
And in that now famous NYT piece, Esty not only touted a carbon emissions charge, he wrote, "An emissions charge is not a radical idea; making people pay for the harm they cause lies at the heart of property rights.
"Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included. Oil companies would pay for every gallon of gas or oil delivered. Yes, these costs could be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments."
And now the Commissioner is claiming he never advocated for higher gasoline prices? His doublespeak may be why Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington told me on my radio show last week, "In Dan Esty, we've got a very smart, very articulate and very dangerous man, a real idealogue, a real left wing, aggressive person, that has a vision, which is anti-growth, anti-consumer, anti, let's say the structure of American society."
The Commissioner not only needs to come clean on his verbal emission, he needs to apologize for duping a radio audience and its legendary broadcaster.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
"New Deal Same Ol Same Ol
We predicted months ago that Dannel88 was cut right from the mold of Barack Obama, a tax and spend liberal.
So his announcement Friday that he had cut a deal with the state employee unions that includes no layoffs should come as no surprise. Furthermore, like Obama, Dannel88 loves the spotlight, as evidenced by the dog and pony show he put on this winter.
In reality, what was the result of his now infamous "listening tour ?" Nothing, other than a larger "carbon footprint.". He got his tax hike - the largest in state history - did not layoff any state unionized employees, and he managed to expand the budget. Not bad for someone who more people voted against for governor than for.
The final piece of Dannel88's charade fell into place Thursday, when the State Supreme Court tossed out Sen. Joe Markley's lawsuit. Essentially the court ruled the state legislature could place a hidden tax on our electric bills and use the money for the general fund. Now Connecticut was awash in an extra $300M, on top of a projected $600M surplus in this fiscal year. That gave Dannel88 the excuse he needed to cut his union deal. Using his stifling tax hike, surplus money that should go back to the people, and the usual budget gimmicks - of which there are many - Dannel88 had his deal.
Remember, as predicted, there were never going to be any layoffs. State employees were the ones who "elected" Dannel88. So in the end, we have what this corner predicted in the fall, if this tax and spend Democrat/WFP candidate was elected: higher taxes, in a state already taxed to the max, more spending, and an overburdenedsome state bureaucracy. And it is just the start of his powergrab, if you follow what else he's been up to, especially with the Department of Environmental Protection. I would not be surprised, if President Obama hasn't already hit the send button on his congratulatory email.
So his announcement Friday that he had cut a deal with the state employee unions that includes no layoffs should come as no surprise. Furthermore, like Obama, Dannel88 loves the spotlight, as evidenced by the dog and pony show he put on this winter.
In reality, what was the result of his now infamous "listening tour ?" Nothing, other than a larger "carbon footprint.". He got his tax hike - the largest in state history - did not layoff any state unionized employees, and he managed to expand the budget. Not bad for someone who more people voted against for governor than for.
The final piece of Dannel88's charade fell into place Thursday, when the State Supreme Court tossed out Sen. Joe Markley's lawsuit. Essentially the court ruled the state legislature could place a hidden tax on our electric bills and use the money for the general fund. Now Connecticut was awash in an extra $300M, on top of a projected $600M surplus in this fiscal year. That gave Dannel88 the excuse he needed to cut his union deal. Using his stifling tax hike, surplus money that should go back to the people, and the usual budget gimmicks - of which there are many - Dannel88 had his deal.
Remember, as predicted, there were never going to be any layoffs. State employees were the ones who "elected" Dannel88. So in the end, we have what this corner predicted in the fall, if this tax and spend Democrat/WFP candidate was elected: higher taxes, in a state already taxed to the max, more spending, and an overburdenedsome state bureaucracy. And it is just the start of his powergrab, if you follow what else he's been up to, especially with the Department of Environmental Protection. I would not be surprised, if President Obama hasn't already hit the send button on his congratulatory email.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
HEALY CALLS FOR DEP HEAD TO RESIGN
Connecticut Republican Party chief Chris Healy is calling for DEP Commissioner Daniel Esty to resign. Appearing on my radio program this afternoon, Healy reacted to Esty's comments we are not paying enough for gasoline. (In Avon, Canton and Simsbury motorists are paying $4.35 per gallon, regular). Speaking to a group of high school students in New Haven, on Monday, Esty called for higher prices as an incentive to make motorists drive less. "Let's make people pay for the harm they cause," Esty told the students.
Esty recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, supporting the creation of a carbon emissions charge. That column, and his comments on Monday have been mostly ignored by the main stream media in Connecticut. But on today's program, I called for Esty's resignation and later, when confronted with Esty's comments, Healy said, "He (Esty), should be repudiated by the governor. He should be replaced by the governor."
"I'm calling for Esty's resignation. Does that mean you are too?" I asked Healy. "Well, yea," he answered.
Esty is also advocating a "pay as you throw" policy for people who choose to toss cans, bottles and food containers, instead of recycling them. "This commissioner, or rather commissar of DEP, is charged with doing a few things. One is to administer laws, as they're laid down, and two is to issue permits. He's not there to promulgate policy that would destroy the economy of this state.
In the story covered by the New Haven Register, Esty told students his job as DEP Commissioner is to make sure "people obey rules and regulations set by the DEP." Should we salute, when he walks into a room, too?
Esty was Dannel 88's handpicked choice to serve as DEP head, after he worked on Barack Obama's presidential campaign and later on his transition team. He sailed through the confirmation process by the legislature and has adopted a high profile in his short time on the job, traveling to schools and speaking before numerous civic groups. In just about every instance, he calls for higher gasoline prices, attacks the fossil fuel industry and is not shy about accepting the global warming theory.
"The guy is completely out of his league. I don't know why the governor picked him. He seems to flaunt the fact that he is a radical environmentalist, anti-business. Now we have a commissioner who is wandering around the state, telling people that $8 or $9 a gallon gas is good for the Connecticut economy."
Good for the moving van industry in Connecticut, perhaps, because that will be the only business thriving, if Esty's radical ideas are combined with Malloy's highest tax hike in state history.
Esty recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, supporting the creation of a carbon emissions charge. That column, and his comments on Monday have been mostly ignored by the main stream media in Connecticut. But on today's program, I called for Esty's resignation and later, when confronted with Esty's comments, Healy said, "He (Esty), should be repudiated by the governor. He should be replaced by the governor."
"I'm calling for Esty's resignation. Does that mean you are too?" I asked Healy. "Well, yea," he answered.
Esty is also advocating a "pay as you throw" policy for people who choose to toss cans, bottles and food containers, instead of recycling them. "This commissioner, or rather commissar of DEP, is charged with doing a few things. One is to administer laws, as they're laid down, and two is to issue permits. He's not there to promulgate policy that would destroy the economy of this state.
In the story covered by the New Haven Register, Esty told students his job as DEP Commissioner is to make sure "people obey rules and regulations set by the DEP." Should we salute, when he walks into a room, too?
Esty was Dannel 88's handpicked choice to serve as DEP head, after he worked on Barack Obama's presidential campaign and later on his transition team. He sailed through the confirmation process by the legislature and has adopted a high profile in his short time on the job, traveling to schools and speaking before numerous civic groups. In just about every instance, he calls for higher gasoline prices, attacks the fossil fuel industry and is not shy about accepting the global warming theory.
"The guy is completely out of his league. I don't know why the governor picked him. He seems to flaunt the fact that he is a radical environmentalist, anti-business. Now we have a commissioner who is wandering around the state, telling people that $8 or $9 a gallon gas is good for the Connecticut economy."
Good for the moving van industry in Connecticut, perhaps, because that will be the only business thriving, if Esty's radical ideas are combined with Malloy's highest tax hike in state history.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
PLAYING RADIO CRITIC ON TAXPAYERS' DIME
How many of you can say you received $7,158 in raises between 2007 and 2010? And with taxpayers footing the bill? Robert C. Douglas can make that claim. According to ctsunlight.org, Douglas, who works for the House Democrats, was paid $70,022 in 2007 and $77,158 in 2010, not counting other state benefits. In other words, while Connecticut's budget was in a tailspin, Douglas was raking in the taxpayers' money.
Douglas emails me on occasion. After initially opening his correspondence, I stopped a few years ago. Usually the emails contain criticisms of my conservative viewpoints and the radio company for which I work. I did not have problems with the criticism, although I'll debate any liberal at any time. I stopped reading his emails, because I felt his time was a gross waste of the taxpayers' money, and I did not want to be an accomplice by wasting my time. That was until, Wednesday, March 30, when I decided to open his latest emails.
As Connecticut faces a dire financial situation, Douglas apparently has the time to play radio critic on the taxpayers' dime. At 2:08 pm, came an email signed by Douglas, chiding radio station personnel over recent programming changes made by our parent company. At 2:29 pm, Douglas dashed off another email, this time with an attachment from the George Soros-funded Media Matters and its coverage of the programming changes. (This time I saved the emails as
proof.)
Is this the best use of taxpayers' money, paying someone to be radio critic? The legislature is at the height of its session and in the middle of the afternoon, Douglas has time to search computer websites and email a radio station, in a chiding manner no less?
During a time, when public sector union positions have come under scrutiny and the unions remind us how important each and every job is, one must ask, how important is Douglas' job? What else is included in his package, besides the annual $77,158? What do his benefits cost? Does he get paid for mileage? Is that mileage compensation part of the calculation used to determine his pension?
When all is included, taxpayers are probably on the hook for $100,000 annually to underwrite a job designed to criticize radio stations. As the conversation turns to government waste, positions occupied by the likes of a Douglas, should be the first to go.
Douglas emails me on occasion. After initially opening his correspondence, I stopped a few years ago. Usually the emails contain criticisms of my conservative viewpoints and the radio company for which I work. I did not have problems with the criticism, although I'll debate any liberal at any time. I stopped reading his emails, because I felt his time was a gross waste of the taxpayers' money, and I did not want to be an accomplice by wasting my time. That was until, Wednesday, March 30, when I decided to open his latest emails.
As Connecticut faces a dire financial situation, Douglas apparently has the time to play radio critic on the taxpayers' dime. At 2:08 pm, came an email signed by Douglas, chiding radio station personnel over recent programming changes made by our parent company. At 2:29 pm, Douglas dashed off another email, this time with an attachment from the George Soros-funded Media Matters and its coverage of the programming changes. (This time I saved the emails as
proof.)
Is this the best use of taxpayers' money, paying someone to be radio critic? The legislature is at the height of its session and in the middle of the afternoon, Douglas has time to search computer websites and email a radio station, in a chiding manner no less?
During a time, when public sector union positions have come under scrutiny and the unions remind us how important each and every job is, one must ask, how important is Douglas' job? What else is included in his package, besides the annual $77,158? What do his benefits cost? Does he get paid for mileage? Is that mileage compensation part of the calculation used to determine his pension?
When all is included, taxpayers are probably on the hook for $100,000 annually to underwrite a job designed to criticize radio stations. As the conversation turns to government waste, positions occupied by the likes of a Douglas, should be the first to go.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
OBAMACARE A BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE
Ask medical billing offices across the United States, what they think of
Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.
Although the bill's full force does not take effect until 2014 - not so
coincidentally after the next presidential election - it is already
turning into a bureaucratic nightmare, while proving once more why
government is so out of touch with the private sector.
Under the act - which apparently had to be passed to find out what was
in it - new Medicare fee schedules have been sent to every office
across the country. One billing office manager told me, "that wouldn't
be so bad, if the fees took effect this year, but they are retroactive
to 2010." Therein lies the dilemma.
Billing offices are being bombarded with paperwork. So much for the
pro-environment president, who never met a tree he didn't want to save.
Managers are being forced to sift through records from last year, in
many cases to make adjustments and send out refunds that amount to 24
cents. In some instances insurance providers are being billed $1.42. All of
this is not only leading to more of the aforementioned paperwork, but
sending our vulnerable senior citizen population into a state of agita.
In one town, for example, a 92-year-old gentleman got into his car
and drove to a billing office, puzzled as to why his supplemental
insurance carrier was asking him to fork over 92 cents for a procedure
that was performed and billed last year. The government is also
requiring billing offices to refund co-payments for procedures
performed last year, that are now 100 percent covered, such as
dexoscans. This again demonstrates the government's disconnect with
the private sector. Businesses have closed their books on 2010
and have already planned their 2011 budgets. Now they being mandated
to look back.
And Connecticut is considering Sustinet, which is Obamacare with the
government run option? Officials need to step up and address this
issue now. Sadly, with Connecticut's liberal congressional delegation
and their cohorts, who control state government, don't expect action
anytime soon.
Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.
Although the bill's full force does not take effect until 2014 - not so
coincidentally after the next presidential election - it is already
turning into a bureaucratic nightmare, while proving once more why
government is so out of touch with the private sector.
Under the act - which apparently had to be passed to find out what was
in it - new Medicare fee schedules have been sent to every office
across the country. One billing office manager told me, "that wouldn't
be so bad, if the fees took effect this year, but they are retroactive
to 2010." Therein lies the dilemma.
Billing offices are being bombarded with paperwork. So much for the
pro-environment president, who never met a tree he didn't want to save.
Managers are being forced to sift through records from last year, in
many cases to make adjustments and send out refunds that amount to 24
cents. In some instances insurance providers are being billed $1.42. All of
this is not only leading to more of the aforementioned paperwork, but
sending our vulnerable senior citizen population into a state of agita.
In one town, for example, a 92-year-old gentleman got into his car
and drove to a billing office, puzzled as to why his supplemental
insurance carrier was asking him to fork over 92 cents for a procedure
that was performed and billed last year. The government is also
requiring billing offices to refund co-payments for procedures
performed last year, that are now 100 percent covered, such as
dexoscans. This again demonstrates the government's disconnect with
the private sector. Businesses have closed their books on 2010
and have already planned their 2011 budgets. Now they being mandated
to look back.
And Connecticut is considering Sustinet, which is Obamacare with the
government run option? Officials need to step up and address this
issue now. Sadly, with Connecticut's liberal congressional delegation
and their cohorts, who control state government, don't expect action
anytime soon.
Monday, March 28, 2011
STATE MAY BE BROKE NOW
Forget about Connecticut's projected $6B deficit over the next two
years. The question is whether the Nutmeg State is broke now. Today's
Republican American quotes State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier as saying
she wants a decision today, by the state Supreme Court.
At issue is Sen. Joe Markley's suit against the state about its
hidden tax on our electric bills. A surcharge on our bills,to help
CL&P and United Illuminating make infrastructure improvements,
was set to expire Dec. 31, 2010. In May of last year, against the
unanimous objection of Republicans, the Democrats voted to balance
the state budget, by allowing the surcharge to remain a part of our
electric bills. The money would go into the general fund to help
balance the budget.
That is when Markley, a Southington Republican, stepped in. He
sued on several fronts. For openers, he claimed the Department of
Utility Controls, which oversees the utility companies, is not a taxing
authority. He also said this was an inequitable tax, because not all
electric customers receive their electricity from CL&P or UI.
A superior court tossed Markley's case, claiming he had not exhausted
all possibilities with lawmakers. Undaunted, Markley appealed, but
before an appellate court could step in, the state Supreme Court took
up the case, because the state is running out of money. Connecticut
intends to rake in $646.6M from the hidden tax and the treasurer needs
to borrow money against that figure now, to keep state government in
business. That is why she is asking for a decision today. If the court
rules in favor of Markley, the state - which currently projects a minor
surplus for the current fiscal year - will be drowning in red ink now.
According to the newspaper story, the governor's office is not
revealing any contingency plans in the event of a court defeat, but the
bottom line is Connecticut, already facing a dire fiscal crisis, will
find calamity at its doorstep, instead of the front yard.
years. The question is whether the Nutmeg State is broke now. Today's
Republican American quotes State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier as saying
she wants a decision today, by the state Supreme Court.
At issue is Sen. Joe Markley's suit against the state about its
hidden tax on our electric bills. A surcharge on our bills,to help
CL&P and United Illuminating make infrastructure improvements,
was set to expire Dec. 31, 2010. In May of last year, against the
unanimous objection of Republicans, the Democrats voted to balance
the state budget, by allowing the surcharge to remain a part of our
electric bills. The money would go into the general fund to help
balance the budget.
That is when Markley, a Southington Republican, stepped in. He
sued on several fronts. For openers, he claimed the Department of
Utility Controls, which oversees the utility companies, is not a taxing
authority. He also said this was an inequitable tax, because not all
electric customers receive their electricity from CL&P or UI.
A superior court tossed Markley's case, claiming he had not exhausted
all possibilities with lawmakers. Undaunted, Markley appealed, but
before an appellate court could step in, the state Supreme Court took
up the case, because the state is running out of money. Connecticut
intends to rake in $646.6M from the hidden tax and the treasurer needs
to borrow money against that figure now, to keep state government in
business. That is why she is asking for a decision today. If the court
rules in favor of Markley, the state - which currently projects a minor
surplus for the current fiscal year - will be drowning in red ink now.
According to the newspaper story, the governor's office is not
revealing any contingency plans in the event of a court defeat, but the
bottom line is Connecticut, already facing a dire fiscal crisis, will
find calamity at its doorstep, instead of the front yard.
Friday, March 18, 2011
MORE UNION WORKERS FOR CONNECTICUT?
If you don't think Connecticut's General Assembly isn't beholden
to the public and private sector unions, you are not paying attention.
While states throughout the country examine how unions have placed
unbearable stress on their financial infrastructure - to the point many
are teetering on the brink of collapse - the legislature's Labor and
Public Employees committee gave approval to a bill that allows just
about every state employee to unionize. That means, even legislative
aids earning more than $100,000 annually, plus benefits, could join
a public sector union. State managers and even public university
graduate assistants could also be part of the union. In fact, 99.5
percent of all state employees could unionize. Currently, 10,000 of
the 50,000 state employees do not have the right to collective
bargaining. That would change, if the General Assembly passes this
bill.
Are you sitting yet? It gets worse. The legislature's Human Services
Committee, as a gift to the Service Employees International Union,
the group which worked hard to get everybody from Barack Obama to
Dannel Malloy elected, voted to allow any business, even a one person
business, to join a union, if they contract with the state of
Connecticut. That means, if you are a day-care provider or personal-
care attendant, you could join a union. California, Oregon, Michigan
and Massachusetts have similar legislation. Not coincidentally,
these states are facing financial Armageddon.
And some wonder why I play the Soviet Union anthem, as Connecticut's
anthem, when I start my radio program?
Liberals are moving fast in pushing their legislative agenda this
session, for fear Connecticut voters are starting to pay attention.
They may never have this perfect storm again, with leftists controlling
the Assembly, governor's chair and all the state constitutional
offices. If they are successful, the only item missing will be
the annual May Day parade past the reviewing stand, although that could
be buried as an amendment to one of these bills. After all, as
Democrats who voted for these bills said, they passed them even though
they were not sure what was in them, because they did not want the
bills to die in committee.
Mark Twain once said, "Few men of first class ability can afford to
let their affairs go to ruin, while they fool away their time in
Legislatures." These days, Connecticut is paying a price for those
who have decided to "fool away their time."
to the public and private sector unions, you are not paying attention.
While states throughout the country examine how unions have placed
unbearable stress on their financial infrastructure - to the point many
are teetering on the brink of collapse - the legislature's Labor and
Public Employees committee gave approval to a bill that allows just
about every state employee to unionize. That means, even legislative
aids earning more than $100,000 annually, plus benefits, could join
a public sector union. State managers and even public university
graduate assistants could also be part of the union. In fact, 99.5
percent of all state employees could unionize. Currently, 10,000 of
the 50,000 state employees do not have the right to collective
bargaining. That would change, if the General Assembly passes this
bill.
Are you sitting yet? It gets worse. The legislature's Human Services
Committee, as a gift to the Service Employees International Union,
the group which worked hard to get everybody from Barack Obama to
Dannel Malloy elected, voted to allow any business, even a one person
business, to join a union, if they contract with the state of
Connecticut. That means, if you are a day-care provider or personal-
care attendant, you could join a union. California, Oregon, Michigan
and Massachusetts have similar legislation. Not coincidentally,
these states are facing financial Armageddon.
And some wonder why I play the Soviet Union anthem, as Connecticut's
anthem, when I start my radio program?
Liberals are moving fast in pushing their legislative agenda this
session, for fear Connecticut voters are starting to pay attention.
They may never have this perfect storm again, with leftists controlling
the Assembly, governor's chair and all the state constitutional
offices. If they are successful, the only item missing will be
the annual May Day parade past the reviewing stand, although that could
be buried as an amendment to one of these bills. After all, as
Democrats who voted for these bills said, they passed them even though
they were not sure what was in them, because they did not want the
bills to die in committee.
Mark Twain once said, "Few men of first class ability can afford to
let their affairs go to ruin, while they fool away their time in
Legislatures." These days, Connecticut is paying a price for those
who have decided to "fool away their time."
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
MALLOY-WYMAN PANDER TO NEW HAVEN
Make no mistake about it, Gov. Dannel Malloy D/WFP and his Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman D/WFP
are backing HB6390, the bill that would allow illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at
state run universities, as a political payoff to New Haven's legislative delegation.
New Haven is a well known sanctuary city, which has 60 percent of its budget
underwritten by the taxpayers of Connecticut. It's mayor, John DeStefano, beat Malloy for
the Democrat party gubernatorial nomination in 2006. In order to garner support from
the mayor and New Haven's voting base, Malloy-Wyman threw the U.S. Constitution under
the bus. Not only did DeStefano speak at Tuesday's public hearing about HB6390, others
supporting it were Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney D-New Haven, Sen. Toni Harp
D-New Haven and Rep. Juan Candelaria D-New Haven.
Backers of the bill are quick to label it "Connecticut's Dream Act," and an opportunity
to provide in-state tuition "for the children of undocumented parents," but that is a
ruse. A child born in this country to an illegal alien - a so called anchor baby - is
a U.S. citizen under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a document which
doesn't mean much to state legislators these days. Translation, this bill is designed
specifically for illegal aliens. Meanwhile, those born in this state to parents,
who are U.S. citizens, may have to wait in line to enroll in their state university
system.
The savings for those breaking the law would be enormous. Instead of deportation, they
would face a $16,000 a year tuition break at UConn or a $7,000 discount at one of the
state's community colleges.
A recent study by Northeastern University, located in that bastion of liberalism, Boston,
showed that more than 300,000 illegal aliens found work in the USA last year. As
Connecticut's jobless rate remains at record highs, one must ask how many illegal aliens
over the years, have found jobs here and why should their children be allowed to attend
our state universities, while law-abiding citizens are left waiting at the gate?
At one of his infamous town hall meetings, when asked why he supports HB6390, Gov. Malloy said,
"that's where I draw the line." Translation, a person sworn to uphold the constitution,
has joined his party ranks to disobey it, all in the name of securing another voting bloc
at the expense of law-abiding citizens. How's that for "hope and change?"
are backing HB6390, the bill that would allow illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at
state run universities, as a political payoff to New Haven's legislative delegation.
New Haven is a well known sanctuary city, which has 60 percent of its budget
underwritten by the taxpayers of Connecticut. It's mayor, John DeStefano, beat Malloy for
the Democrat party gubernatorial nomination in 2006. In order to garner support from
the mayor and New Haven's voting base, Malloy-Wyman threw the U.S. Constitution under
the bus. Not only did DeStefano speak at Tuesday's public hearing about HB6390, others
supporting it were Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney D-New Haven, Sen. Toni Harp
D-New Haven and Rep. Juan Candelaria D-New Haven.
Backers of the bill are quick to label it "Connecticut's Dream Act," and an opportunity
to provide in-state tuition "for the children of undocumented parents," but that is a
ruse. A child born in this country to an illegal alien - a so called anchor baby - is
a U.S. citizen under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a document which
doesn't mean much to state legislators these days. Translation, this bill is designed
specifically for illegal aliens. Meanwhile, those born in this state to parents,
who are U.S. citizens, may have to wait in line to enroll in their state university
system.
The savings for those breaking the law would be enormous. Instead of deportation, they
would face a $16,000 a year tuition break at UConn or a $7,000 discount at one of the
state's community colleges.
A recent study by Northeastern University, located in that bastion of liberalism, Boston,
showed that more than 300,000 illegal aliens found work in the USA last year. As
Connecticut's jobless rate remains at record highs, one must ask how many illegal aliens
over the years, have found jobs here and why should their children be allowed to attend
our state universities, while law-abiding citizens are left waiting at the gate?
At one of his infamous town hall meetings, when asked why he supports HB6390, Gov. Malloy said,
"that's where I draw the line." Translation, a person sworn to uphold the constitution,
has joined his party ranks to disobey it, all in the name of securing another voting bloc
at the expense of law-abiding citizens. How's that for "hope and change?"
WANTING IT BOTH WAYS WITH TEA PARTY
Are certain Connecticut Republicans paying the Tea Party lip service? At
Tuesday's meeting of the Legislature's General Law committee, most GOP members
refused to go on the record for a vote allowing Sunday openings of package
stores, in the process throwing their colleague Sen. John Kissel R-Enfield,
under the bus.
The committee co-chairs did not place the Sunday liquor sales on the agenda,
meaning the bill died at 5 p.m. It could return as part of a massive budget
bill or as an amendment to another measure. Still, when Sen. Kissel asked
for a roll call on the bill, to gauge panel members position on the issue, he
was denied. When he asked for a roll call to determine whether the Sunday
liquor sales issue should be brought up by the committee, he was denied again.
"I've never seen a roll call to have a roll call," the senator told me on my
afternoon radio program. Sen. Kissel said officials went scurrying for
Roberts Rules of Order to determine if they could even have a "roll call for
a roll call."
Lost in the debate, were the GOP members on the panel, other than Sen. Kissel,
refusing to take a public stand on the lightening rod issue. Many had led
Connecticut Tea Party members to believe they would support lifting of the ban.
Public polls show overwhelming support for Sunday sales. But the liquor lobby,
which represents package stores in the interior portion of the state opposed
to Sunday sales, has placed heavy pressure on several lawmakers not to even bring
the bill up for a vote.
It would seem to me Republicans on the committee, other than Sen. Kissel, want
it both ways. They don't want to anger Tea Party members, yet they are
beholden to a lobby representing a select few in their individual districts at
the expense of the majority opinion in their district. Such an approach, has
gotten politicians from both major parties thrown out of office, as more citizens
pay notice to what shenanigans their elected officials play.
Meanwhile, Sen. Kissel believe advocates of Sunday liquor sales may challenge
the ban in court, on the basis it is unconstitutional. And he says, they may use
the car dealers as an example. That industry successfully challenged the state law
car dealers could not be open on Sunday.
Tuesday's meeting of the Legislature's General Law committee, most GOP members
refused to go on the record for a vote allowing Sunday openings of package
stores, in the process throwing their colleague Sen. John Kissel R-Enfield,
under the bus.
The committee co-chairs did not place the Sunday liquor sales on the agenda,
meaning the bill died at 5 p.m. It could return as part of a massive budget
bill or as an amendment to another measure. Still, when Sen. Kissel asked
for a roll call on the bill, to gauge panel members position on the issue, he
was denied. When he asked for a roll call to determine whether the Sunday
liquor sales issue should be brought up by the committee, he was denied again.
"I've never seen a roll call to have a roll call," the senator told me on my
afternoon radio program. Sen. Kissel said officials went scurrying for
Roberts Rules of Order to determine if they could even have a "roll call for
a roll call."
Lost in the debate, were the GOP members on the panel, other than Sen. Kissel,
refusing to take a public stand on the lightening rod issue. Many had led
Connecticut Tea Party members to believe they would support lifting of the ban.
Public polls show overwhelming support for Sunday sales. But the liquor lobby,
which represents package stores in the interior portion of the state opposed
to Sunday sales, has placed heavy pressure on several lawmakers not to even bring
the bill up for a vote.
It would seem to me Republicans on the committee, other than Sen. Kissel, want
it both ways. They don't want to anger Tea Party members, yet they are
beholden to a lobby representing a select few in their individual districts at
the expense of the majority opinion in their district. Such an approach, has
gotten politicians from both major parties thrown out of office, as more citizens
pay notice to what shenanigans their elected officials play.
Meanwhile, Sen. Kissel believe advocates of Sunday liquor sales may challenge
the ban in court, on the basis it is unconstitutional. And he says, they may use
the car dealers as an example. That industry successfully challenged the state law
car dealers could not be open on Sunday.
Senator Has Marijuana Concerns
Sen. John Kissel R-Enfield, says he has concerns about the medical marijuana bill,
under debate in legislative committee, but he's even more concerned about another
bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession of under one ounce to a $99 fine.
On my radio program, Sen. Kissel said "Decriminalization is the real scary thing.
There's no distinction in the bill on whether a 14 year old or 40 year old is
caught with marijuana."
The senator is also concerned what message decriminalization would send to young
people. "I have a 15 year old and a seven year old."
The notion being advanced by supporters that decriminalization would lower crime
and prison rates also has Sen. Kissel disturbed. "As my colleague Rep. Larry
Caffero (R-Norwalk) said, 'Follow the money. Where are people going to get the
marijuana?' From organized crime. It's going to lead to more violent crime.
Besides, jails are not clogged with people in there for marijuana possession,
as supporters say."
To wit, a Litchfield Superior court judge recently handed down a four-year
suspended sentence and fine to a Cornwall man for growing 241 marijuana plants
in his home.
When the issue of problems other states have, following decriminalization of
marijuana possession, was brought up, Sen. Kissel said lawmakers who support
the bill did not have an answer for that either, apparently content to parade
out advocates of the bill to speak.
In other words, the bill is so loosely written, liberals will have to pass it in
order to see what's in it.
under debate in legislative committee, but he's even more concerned about another
bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession of under one ounce to a $99 fine.
On my radio program, Sen. Kissel said "Decriminalization is the real scary thing.
There's no distinction in the bill on whether a 14 year old or 40 year old is
caught with marijuana."
The senator is also concerned what message decriminalization would send to young
people. "I have a 15 year old and a seven year old."
The notion being advanced by supporters that decriminalization would lower crime
and prison rates also has Sen. Kissel disturbed. "As my colleague Rep. Larry
Caffero (R-Norwalk) said, 'Follow the money. Where are people going to get the
marijuana?' From organized crime. It's going to lead to more violent crime.
Besides, jails are not clogged with people in there for marijuana possession,
as supporters say."
To wit, a Litchfield Superior court judge recently handed down a four-year
suspended sentence and fine to a Cornwall man for growing 241 marijuana plants
in his home.
When the issue of problems other states have, following decriminalization of
marijuana possession, was brought up, Sen. Kissel said lawmakers who support
the bill did not have an answer for that either, apparently content to parade
out advocates of the bill to speak.
In other words, the bill is so loosely written, liberals will have to pass it in
order to see what's in it.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
SOCIALIST CONNECTICUT
Now that the Democrat-Working Family Party elected officials occupy every Constitutional Office in Connecticut, their socialist ways have launched a full frontal assault on our constitution. Per usual, they are hoping most people will be working their remotes, more concerned with Charlie What's-His-Name. (I refuse to write his full name in this discourse.)
On Tuesday, proponents and opponents of the paid-sick leave bill spoke at a Labor and Public Employees Committee hearing. (Gov. Dannel Malloy -D, WFP, is the bill's biggest booster.) Turns out, under the bill, you don't even have to be sick to call in sick. It could be a family member. When all is said and done, you may be able to call in sick, if your fifth cousin has the sniffles, although we all know people don't abuse government mandated programs.
Among those speaking in support of the anti-business measure was State Comptroller Kevin Lembo- D, WFP. He even mentioned a survey, where eight million people in the United States went to work last year with the H1N1 virus, spreading it to another seven million people. Who knew we had an epidemic? And we tossed all that vaccine? And, by the way, who conducted the survey? And so much for Lembo serving as a state comptroller for all the people.
Then there is the story of Cheryl Folston of Newington, who told the committee she put off going to the doctor, because missing a day of work, driving special education students, would mean no pay. Once she was laid off, a doctor found she had a heart ailment. Although we can all empathize with Ms. Folston's condition, why couldn't she have gone to the doctor, when the students had a scheduled day off? There are school vacations and numerous days off built into the school calendar. And who knew the bill also covered pre-existing conditions?
In reality, paid sick leave is emblematic of the socialists, like Dannel 88, his Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, Lembo and their fellow Working Family Party members, spreading the wealth and penalizing those who work hard to start up and own businesses. The paid sick leave perk is something, which should be decided between a union and it's employees, during collective bargaining. As the private-sector union movement wanes in this country, the socialists, who dominate Connecticut government, will attempt to impose their distorted view of the constitution by fiat, unless a public more concerned with Charlie what's-his-name starts paying attention.
On Tuesday, proponents and opponents of the paid-sick leave bill spoke at a Labor and Public Employees Committee hearing. (Gov. Dannel Malloy -D, WFP, is the bill's biggest booster.) Turns out, under the bill, you don't even have to be sick to call in sick. It could be a family member. When all is said and done, you may be able to call in sick, if your fifth cousin has the sniffles, although we all know people don't abuse government mandated programs.
Among those speaking in support of the anti-business measure was State Comptroller Kevin Lembo- D, WFP. He even mentioned a survey, where eight million people in the United States went to work last year with the H1N1 virus, spreading it to another seven million people. Who knew we had an epidemic? And we tossed all that vaccine? And, by the way, who conducted the survey? And so much for Lembo serving as a state comptroller for all the people.
Then there is the story of Cheryl Folston of Newington, who told the committee she put off going to the doctor, because missing a day of work, driving special education students, would mean no pay. Once she was laid off, a doctor found she had a heart ailment. Although we can all empathize with Ms. Folston's condition, why couldn't she have gone to the doctor, when the students had a scheduled day off? There are school vacations and numerous days off built into the school calendar. And who knew the bill also covered pre-existing conditions?
In reality, paid sick leave is emblematic of the socialists, like Dannel 88, his Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, Lembo and their fellow Working Family Party members, spreading the wealth and penalizing those who work hard to start up and own businesses. The paid sick leave perk is something, which should be decided between a union and it's employees, during collective bargaining. As the private-sector union movement wanes in this country, the socialists, who dominate Connecticut government, will attempt to impose their distorted view of the constitution by fiat, unless a public more concerned with Charlie what's-his-name starts paying attention.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A TALE OF TWO GOVERNORS
One need only to look at Wisconsin, to understand how serious a problem Connecticut's budget woes are. While Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker offers real leadership in closing a budget gap, Connecticut's Democrat Governor Dannel Malloy is falling back on tried and true liberal tenets; tax, tax and tax more, to keep the public employee unions prosperous and a dependable voting base. So stark are the contrasts, that one can only dream Connecticut had such leadership.
How is it for example, that a state larger in land mass and nearly double Connecticut's population, has 33 state senators compared to our 36? Why is it, Wisconsin has a two-year $3.6B deficit and is cutting spending, while Connecticut faces a two-year $6B deficit and is increasing spending, underwriting it with the largest tax hike in state history?
Gov. Walker says what he is proposing to implement in a renowned blue-collar state, are budget cuts, while asking public employee unions -except for police and firefighters - to make more contributions to their health care and pensions, which would still be decidedly lower than what one in the private sector pays.
Gov. Malloy is hoping for union concessions, while raising the sales tax, imposing another retail tax on top of the sales tax, raising the income tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, adding a generation tax to our electric bill, and removing tax exemptions on goods and property. Meanwhile, the Democrat controlled General Assembly, while hailing the governor's budget, also talks about adding tolls, raising fees and imposing a five-cent tax on shoppers, who dare use plastic or paper bags.
Gov. Walker digs in his heals against a small, vocal minority - despite what the mainstream media claims is overwhelming opposition. Gov. Malloy, reminds us of what a leader he is, then protects his voter base at the expense of the remaining blue-collar electorate.
Gov. Malloy says we must sit down and negotiate with the unions. Gov. Walker says there is no room to negotiate, "We (Wisconsin) are broke." And their two-year deficit is $3.6B. What does that make Connecticut with a two-year $6B deficit?
Gov. Walker's financial aid to municipalities is to remove unfunded mandates. Gov. Malloy's financial aid to municipalities is to add the retail tax to the sales tax, while increasing the conveyance tax, with no plan to remove unfunded mandates.
Gov. Walker proposes to shrink government, getting it off the backs of the people. Gov. Malloy purports to reduce government, while increasing spending, taxes, continuing to borrow and use taxpayer money to experiment, underwriting the first vestiges of universal preschool.
Gov. Malloy says Connecticut is "open for business," then supports one of the worst anti-business bills in the country, paid sick leave. Gov. Walker takes real steps to cut government spending, taxes and over regulation, then says Wisconsin is open for business. You tell me to which state business will locate?
On and on it goes. Two new governors, facing the same problem, but offering different solutions. Gov. Walker pandering to his largest voting base, the people of Wisconsin. Gov. Malloy pandering to his, the public employee unions and liberal causes, at the expense of the people of Connecticut. One could only hope that some day, a Scott Walker will emerge in Connecticut. It is our only hope, as we sinking into oblivion, under our own financial duress.
How is it for example, that a state larger in land mass and nearly double Connecticut's population, has 33 state senators compared to our 36? Why is it, Wisconsin has a two-year $3.6B deficit and is cutting spending, while Connecticut faces a two-year $6B deficit and is increasing spending, underwriting it with the largest tax hike in state history?
Gov. Walker says what he is proposing to implement in a renowned blue-collar state, are budget cuts, while asking public employee unions -except for police and firefighters - to make more contributions to their health care and pensions, which would still be decidedly lower than what one in the private sector pays.
Gov. Malloy is hoping for union concessions, while raising the sales tax, imposing another retail tax on top of the sales tax, raising the income tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, adding a generation tax to our electric bill, and removing tax exemptions on goods and property. Meanwhile, the Democrat controlled General Assembly, while hailing the governor's budget, also talks about adding tolls, raising fees and imposing a five-cent tax on shoppers, who dare use plastic or paper bags.
Gov. Walker digs in his heals against a small, vocal minority - despite what the mainstream media claims is overwhelming opposition. Gov. Malloy, reminds us of what a leader he is, then protects his voter base at the expense of the remaining blue-collar electorate.
Gov. Malloy says we must sit down and negotiate with the unions. Gov. Walker says there is no room to negotiate, "We (Wisconsin) are broke." And their two-year deficit is $3.6B. What does that make Connecticut with a two-year $6B deficit?
Gov. Walker's financial aid to municipalities is to remove unfunded mandates. Gov. Malloy's financial aid to municipalities is to add the retail tax to the sales tax, while increasing the conveyance tax, with no plan to remove unfunded mandates.
Gov. Walker proposes to shrink government, getting it off the backs of the people. Gov. Malloy purports to reduce government, while increasing spending, taxes, continuing to borrow and use taxpayer money to experiment, underwriting the first vestiges of universal preschool.
Gov. Malloy says Connecticut is "open for business," then supports one of the worst anti-business bills in the country, paid sick leave. Gov. Walker takes real steps to cut government spending, taxes and over regulation, then says Wisconsin is open for business. You tell me to which state business will locate?
On and on it goes. Two new governors, facing the same problem, but offering different solutions. Gov. Walker pandering to his largest voting base, the people of Wisconsin. Gov. Malloy pandering to his, the public employee unions and liberal causes, at the expense of the people of Connecticut. One could only hope that some day, a Scott Walker will emerge in Connecticut. It is our only hope, as we sinking into oblivion, under our own financial duress.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX?
Are Connecticut's already overburdened taxpayers prepared
for a statewide property tax? Not really. But that is the ruse State Sen.
Joe Markley R-Southington says Gov. Dannel -
don't call me Dan - Malloy and General Assembly Democrats may use to
"sell" tax hikes to Connecticut residents.
With Connecticut facing at least a $3.5B debt for the next budget
cycle - some say it's more like $5B - tax hikes are a certainty with
Democrats in control of the Assembly and the governor's seat for the first
time in 20 years.
Sen. Markley is back in the legislature for the first time in nearly two decades.
He was the senator in 1991, who led the charge against the state income
tax supported by Gov. Lowell Weicker and his budget chief William Cibes -
who now collects an annual salary of $112,000, as the State University Chair
Emeritus." Sen. Markley cringes, when he hears Gov. Malloy's repeated phrase, "shared
sacrifice." He, like many others, interprets this to mean tax hikes. As well
he should. Dannel 88 has made no secret tax hikes will be part of his
budget address Feb. 16, even though he hasn't directly said so.
On my radio show, Sen. Markley said, "I've heard some talk that the governor
and Democrats will suggest a statewide property tax - as a means to help
relieve the debt - figuring the public outcry will be so great, that Democrats
will abandon the idea." That, Senator Markley suggests, will pave the way
for an increase in taxes and an elimination of certain tax exemptions as
"acceptable" alternatives.
That is why the special elections scheduled for Feb. 22, to fill nine vacant
seats in the Assembly, three in the Senate and six in the House, are so
important, Sen. Markley stated.
"If Republicans can win these three senate elections, that would give us 16
seats in the 36 seat Senate," he said. "If we could convince fiscally responsible
senators like Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, Paul Doyle, D-Newington and Joe Crisco,
D-Ansonia to side with Republicans, we could stop at least some of these tax hikes,"
Sen. Markley said.
Sen. Markley agreed with Senate Minority Leader John McKinney R-Fairfield, the
legislature can present a spending plan that reduces expenditures without raising taxes.
And that should be the GOP stance throughout this session. Oppose! Oppose!
Oppose! The Democrats, from Dannel 88, to his fellow-party members in the Assembly,
do not need one Republican vote to implement their tax-and-spend agenda, other than to
validate their liberal doctrine. They control all the
levers of power. Therefore, it is paramount the Republicans oppose everything
offered by Democrats, that represents tax and spending hikes. No "reaching across
the aisle," as suggested by some on the GOP "side," is necessary.
Every tax hike needs to be loudly opposed and the possible Democrat ruse of a
statewide-property tax exposed for what it really is,
a disguise to implement other tax hikes to cover the budgetary sins of previous
Democrat-dominated legislatures.
for a statewide property tax? Not really. But that is the ruse State Sen.
Joe Markley R-Southington says Gov. Dannel -
don't call me Dan - Malloy and General Assembly Democrats may use to
"sell" tax hikes to Connecticut residents.
With Connecticut facing at least a $3.5B debt for the next budget
cycle - some say it's more like $5B - tax hikes are a certainty with
Democrats in control of the Assembly and the governor's seat for the first
time in 20 years.
Sen. Markley is back in the legislature for the first time in nearly two decades.
He was the senator in 1991, who led the charge against the state income
tax supported by Gov. Lowell Weicker and his budget chief William Cibes -
who now collects an annual salary of $112,000, as the State University Chair
Emeritus." Sen. Markley cringes, when he hears Gov. Malloy's repeated phrase, "shared
sacrifice." He, like many others, interprets this to mean tax hikes. As well
he should. Dannel 88 has made no secret tax hikes will be part of his
budget address Feb. 16, even though he hasn't directly said so.
On my radio show, Sen. Markley said, "I've heard some talk that the governor
and Democrats will suggest a statewide property tax - as a means to help
relieve the debt - figuring the public outcry will be so great, that Democrats
will abandon the idea." That, Senator Markley suggests, will pave the way
for an increase in taxes and an elimination of certain tax exemptions as
"acceptable" alternatives.
That is why the special elections scheduled for Feb. 22, to fill nine vacant
seats in the Assembly, three in the Senate and six in the House, are so
important, Sen. Markley stated.
"If Republicans can win these three senate elections, that would give us 16
seats in the 36 seat Senate," he said. "If we could convince fiscally responsible
senators like Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, Paul Doyle, D-Newington and Joe Crisco,
D-Ansonia to side with Republicans, we could stop at least some of these tax hikes,"
Sen. Markley said.
Sen. Markley agreed with Senate Minority Leader John McKinney R-Fairfield, the
legislature can present a spending plan that reduces expenditures without raising taxes.
And that should be the GOP stance throughout this session. Oppose! Oppose!
Oppose! The Democrats, from Dannel 88, to his fellow-party members in the Assembly,
do not need one Republican vote to implement their tax-and-spend agenda, other than to
validate their liberal doctrine. They control all the
levers of power. Therefore, it is paramount the Republicans oppose everything
offered by Democrats, that represents tax and spending hikes. No "reaching across
the aisle," as suggested by some on the GOP "side," is necessary.
Every tax hike needs to be loudly opposed and the possible Democrat ruse of a
statewide-property tax exposed for what it really is,
a disguise to implement other tax hikes to cover the budgetary sins of previous
Democrat-dominated legislatures.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
AND THEY WANT TO RUN HEALTHCARE?
Starting Jan. 1, Connecticut's ban on the disposal of electronic waste took effect. With the proliferation of computers to other electronic gadgets, e-waste has become an issue. Thus a "system" was created to properly dispose of everything from computers to copy machines to cellphones and TV sets. No more just dumping them in the garbage.
The state also promised municipalities they would not pay a penny for disposing e-waste. They would create the apparatus to correctly rid the universe of this electronic trash. Except, Jan. 1 has come and gone, and the infrastructure isn't in place, leaving the cities and towns stuck with the bill.
It's not as if the state didn't have enough time to design a system. The law for e-waste was passed in 2007.
Then there's the hunting and fishing licensing fee fiasco. You may recall these fees were doubled last year to help "close" the state's mounting budget gap. The public outcry led state officials to repeal the hike. Except, what to do with those, who already paid the new, doubled fee? No problem. The state established a refund policy for those who ponied up additional dollars.
Now word is, the refund process, to in most cases be reimbursed $20, has become so cumbersome, mired in red tape, that most people have given up, after trying for six months, to get their money back. And these are the people who want to run health care? They cannot even set up a simple refund policy. And after four years, they still don't have an e-waste disposal system in place.
One can only hope the public will someday awaken to the fact government-run health care is nothing more than another power grab by a ruling class that will not be content, until it totally destroys our way of life.
The state also promised municipalities they would not pay a penny for disposing e-waste. They would create the apparatus to correctly rid the universe of this electronic trash. Except, Jan. 1 has come and gone, and the infrastructure isn't in place, leaving the cities and towns stuck with the bill.
It's not as if the state didn't have enough time to design a system. The law for e-waste was passed in 2007.
Then there's the hunting and fishing licensing fee fiasco. You may recall these fees were doubled last year to help "close" the state's mounting budget gap. The public outcry led state officials to repeal the hike. Except, what to do with those, who already paid the new, doubled fee? No problem. The state established a refund policy for those who ponied up additional dollars.
Now word is, the refund process, to in most cases be reimbursed $20, has become so cumbersome, mired in red tape, that most people have given up, after trying for six months, to get their money back. And these are the people who want to run health care? They cannot even set up a simple refund policy. And after four years, they still don't have an e-waste disposal system in place.
One can only hope the public will someday awaken to the fact government-run health care is nothing more than another power grab by a ruling class that will not be content, until it totally destroys our way of life.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Don't Blame Randy
A lot is being made about why coach Randy Edsall didn't tell his players about his departure from UConn, following the team's 48-20 loss to Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl on New Year's day. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If we are to believe the timetable, Edsall had not told his bosses yet about his new job, so how could he inform his players he was heading to Maryland? It was not until 2AM Sunday that Edsall told school officials he would not be returning on the team's charter to Connecticut that day. Under the best of circumstances, a departure for a new job in any field can be a sticky proposition. When it comes to the high profile world of Division I-A college coaches, the landscape can become even messier. Besides, if anyone believed UConn was Edsall's last job, they didn't understand the culture of big time college football.
Most coaches get only one shot at cashing in on that big pay day. You can make the case Edsall had done all he could to elevate the program at Connecticut. In 12 years, he brought UConn up from Division I-AA to Division I-A much faster than most people anticipated. He won a share of two Big East titles, beat Notre Dame, went to five bowl games, including the BCS Fiesta Bowl and won three of those games. Plus, he guided the program through the killing of player Jaspar Howard, an incident which no coaching manual covers.
It became obvious, when Edsall's name emerged as a leading contender to coach Miami, that he was looking for greener pastures. If it wasn't Miami, it was going to be some other school. (I had speculated on Saturday, to friends that Pittsburgh might have made a pitch for him.)
Had Edsall, 52, stayed at Connecticut next season and the team struggled, his coaching luster would have dimmed and the offers might not have come his way. That is why Edsall is the coach at Maryland today and UConn is now seeking to fill a job vacancy. Edsall's departure, as painful as it might come to some, reminds us all that big time college football is big time business for the universities, which choose to join the dance, no matter how dicey a coach chooses to deliver his good byes.
If we are to believe the timetable, Edsall had not told his bosses yet about his new job, so how could he inform his players he was heading to Maryland? It was not until 2AM Sunday that Edsall told school officials he would not be returning on the team's charter to Connecticut that day. Under the best of circumstances, a departure for a new job in any field can be a sticky proposition. When it comes to the high profile world of Division I-A college coaches, the landscape can become even messier. Besides, if anyone believed UConn was Edsall's last job, they didn't understand the culture of big time college football.
Most coaches get only one shot at cashing in on that big pay day. You can make the case Edsall had done all he could to elevate the program at Connecticut. In 12 years, he brought UConn up from Division I-AA to Division I-A much faster than most people anticipated. He won a share of two Big East titles, beat Notre Dame, went to five bowl games, including the BCS Fiesta Bowl and won three of those games. Plus, he guided the program through the killing of player Jaspar Howard, an incident which no coaching manual covers.
It became obvious, when Edsall's name emerged as a leading contender to coach Miami, that he was looking for greener pastures. If it wasn't Miami, it was going to be some other school. (I had speculated on Saturday, to friends that Pittsburgh might have made a pitch for him.)
Had Edsall, 52, stayed at Connecticut next season and the team struggled, his coaching luster would have dimmed and the offers might not have come his way. That is why Edsall is the coach at Maryland today and UConn is now seeking to fill a job vacancy. Edsall's departure, as painful as it might come to some, reminds us all that big time college football is big time business for the universities, which choose to join the dance, no matter how dicey a coach chooses to deliver his good byes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
