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.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
