Saturday, January 8, 2011


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.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011


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.

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.