Dan Lovallo Discourse

Is This The Best GOP Can Do?

2011-06-16T02:55:00.000-07:00

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.

WELCOME TO THE PORTA POTTY STATE

2011-06-08T03:15:00.000-07:00

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."

Did Malloy Bet On The Wrong Horse?

2011-06-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Our Techno-savvy Governor

2011-05-25T06:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Did DEP Commissioner Dupe Radio Audience?

2011-05-19T18:56:00.000-07:00

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.

"New Deal Same Ol Same Ol

2011-05-14T04:41:00.000-07:00

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.

HEALY CALLS FOR DEP HEAD TO RESIGN

2011-05-11T18:24:00.000-07:00

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.

PLAYING RADIO CRITIC ON TAXPAYERS' DIME

2011-03-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

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.

OBAMACARE A BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE

2011-03-30T06:15:00.001-07:00

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.

STATE MAY BE BROKE NOW

2011-03-28T05:40:00.000-07:00

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.

MORE UNION WORKERS FOR CONNECTICUT?

2011-03-18T06:43:00.000-07:00

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."

MALLOY-WYMAN PANDER TO NEW HAVEN

2011-03-16T06:31:00.000-07:00

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?"

WANTING IT BOTH WAYS WITH TEA PARTY

2011-03-16T06:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Senator Has Marijuana Concerns

2011-03-16T06:28:00.000-07:00

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.

SOCIALIST CONNECTICUT

2011-03-02T05:16:00.000-08:00

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.

A TALE OF TWO GOVERNORS

2011-02-18T17:06:00.000-08:00

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.

A STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX?

2011-01-08T11:12:00.000-08:00

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.

AND THEY WANT TO RUN HEALTHCARE?

2011-01-05T05:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Don't Blame Randy

2011-01-03T06:51:00.000-08:00

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.

YOUR WFP GOVERNOR

2010-12-16T07:17:00.000-08:00

Just hours after promising a pro business group, "Connecticut will be open for business," when he becomes governor, Governor-elect Dannel Malloy has displayed his true, liberal colors.

Malloy issued his business declaration at the MetroHartford Alliance breakfast, Tuesday. Business leaders expressed optimism, following the talk, declaring the honeymoon was on. Within 24 hours, however, Malloy has done the following:

1. Tell religious and social group leaders, he is for state-run "universal health care."
2. Support paid sick leave.
3. Name two avowed liberals to his inner administration, State Sen. Andrew McDonald D-Stamford, and political operative Roy Occhiogrosso.
4. Attend the Working Families Party gathering with his soon-to-be Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman

In other words, every move he has made since the Tuesday breakfast, has appealed to the extreme leftist movement in Connecticut.

His appearance at the WFP event is especially telling, although not surprising. When the WFP endorsed Malloy for governor, during the campaign, his acceptance was lukewarm at best. To have shown enthusiasm, would have alienated the unaffiliated voter bloc he desperately needed to be elected governor. At last night's party, however, Malloy's cup runneth over with praise for WFP. "We're all part of one big family. We wouldn't be here without all of the hard work of the people in this room. I know that. I appreciate that."

WFP, founded in 1998, lists on its website its ideology: "Progressivism. Populism. Social democracy." If that doesn't sound like the platform of the old Communist parties of eastern Europe, then you haven't been paying attention, which Malloy certainly hopes.

WFP is a consortium of the old ACORN, labor unions and community organizations, the backbone of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Furthermore, it has a powerful alliance with the Service Employees International Union, which helped get Obama elected, and some suggest influenced the inner city Connecticut gubernatorial vote. SEIU is known to have underwritten a sizeable amount of the WFP's budget. There have been rumblings some of George Soros' money has found its way to the WFP, as well. The WFP has been under investigation for voter fraud in New York. Sound familiar? The list goes on. This is the group, Connecticut's next governor has chosen to embrace.

Although Malloy has a knack for telling his audience what they want to hear - sound pro business to business groups, sound pro worker to workers' groups - make no mistake about it, his actions in this transitional period have tilted decidedly to the left. It's becoming patently clear we are about to inaugurate a governor, whose main objective is to redistribute the wealth, much like the current White House occupant.

Others may try to paint Malloy as a fiscally conservative Democrat. Do not be fooled. Socialism, already a cornerstone of Connecticut government, is about to accelerate full speed ahead, driven by a governor, for whom more people voted against, than for.

USE THE STUDENTS. SAVE MONEY!

2010-12-15T05:58:00.000-08:00

The media has been making a big deal about how Connecticut was left off a New England tourism group's website, because the state hadn't paid its annual $100,000 dues. "Discover New England," launched in 1992 by the governors from the six New England states, was designed to promote New England as a tourist destination to Europeans. On the site's latest display, Connecticut is wiped off the map.
At issue is the Nutmeg State's current budget shortfall. In the recent spending plan, the state's tourism commission was given a near zero budget. No money translated into no 100Gs for Discover New England.
The Hartford Courant, which chose to make the "slight" its lead story in Saturday's edition, quoted Sue Norrington-Davies, Discover New England's executive director. "Action had to be taken to show the implication of these budget cuts. It's an unfortunate situation. We want Connecticut back on board. I assure, you."
But does the Portsmouth, NH group want Connecticut on board or does it just want to squeeze out 100Gs of tax dollars, the Nutmeg State does not have? Besides, who claims it's an unfortunate situation? The Republican-American reported last year, the state's tourism revenue rose last year, with no money in the tourism promotion budget.
Typically, Connecticut Democrats, who never met a government expenditure they didn't like, were quick to pounce on the spending shortchange. Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for soon-to-be Governor Dannel Malloy, told the Courant, "This is a perfect example of ways in which our state has been penny-wise and pound foolish."
Translation, when Malloy takes the oath, cash-strapped Connecticut will put the dough back in the tourism budget, including the 100Gs for Discover New England.
But here's an idea, that could save the taxpayers that coveted 100Gs. Launch a competition among our high school and college students to design a website, touting Connecticut tourism overseas. We have teenagers in our family - and I'm sure you do as well - who could do dances around our government bureaucrats, with their computer expertise. One 13-year-old in our family designs websites in a snap. Why are we automatically handing over $100,000 to a government-promoted group, when the answer is in our own backyard at very little cost?
The governor-elect has promised a new approach to government. (Wouldn't you love to have a dollar for every time a newly elected official has uttered that comment?) Here's a chance to prove it, with a program that promotes Connecticut tourism and education. The approach would not only be penny wise, but pound wise too.

DAN'S TOP 40 DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA

2010-11-17T06:16:00.000-08:00

On January 5, 2011, for the first time in 20 years, Connecticut will have a governor from the Democratic party, to go along with a state legislature dominated in near veto-proof numbers by the Democrats. Therefore, as a public service, I am offering "Dan's Top 40." It is a checklist for concerned citizens, to follow the Democratic Party agenda, i.e. bills passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy. This list is not necessarily in order of importance.

1. Increase in income tax rate
2. Increase in sales tax rate
3. Increase in gasoline tax
4. Increase in fees, licenses, etc.
5. Return of the gift tax
6. Return of toll booths
7. Churches lose tax exempt status
8. Municipalities permitted to impose more taxes, i.e. a local sales tax
9. Cap and tax, of which Connecticut is a part, to be expanded
10. Death penalty abolished
11. Plastic bags banned in supermarkets, or pay a fee to use them
12. Elephants banned from circus
13. More bottles and containers subjected to bottle deposit law
14. Happy meals banned or heavily taxed
15. Other comfort food subjected to taxes
16. State run healthcare - Sustinet - approved
17. Paid sick leave mandated
18. Taxpayer money underwrites new Hartford arena to lure NHL franchise
19. More gun control legislation
20. In-state tuition at state universities for children of illegal aliens
21. Free electricity, year round, for families of three or more children
22. Transgender rights
23. Abortions mandated at Roman Catholic owned hospitals
24. Smoking banned in all public and private places and banned in casinos
25. Smoking banned in motor vehicles, containing children
26. Medicinal marijuana approved
27. Marijuana decriminalized with possession of one ounce or less
28. Outdoor furnances banned
29. Lawn mower, weed wackers, and any outdoor power equipment subjected to
emission controls or banned entirely
30. Seat belts mandated on all school buses (hidden property tax hike)
31. Mandated energy efficient windows on all new installations
32. Wearing helmet while driving or riding a motorcycle mandated
33. Mandated universal preschool (hidden property tax hike)
34. More camera installations on highways and intersections to arrest drivers (revenue raiser)
35. Styrofoam cups banned
36. Mandated "energy" saving lightbulbs
37. Electricity deregulation ended with passage of SB493 (More government bureaucracy)
38. Election day registration permitted
39. Early voting permitted
40. Minimum wage raised

Fact Don't Support Malloy

2010-10-06T18:24:00.000-07:00

During Tuesday night's gubernatorial debate, when GOP candidate Tom Foley alluded to my mentioning on my afternoon radio show, how his opponent had cut deals with government sector employee unions, Dan Malloy bristled, claiming no arrangements had been made. Had Foley pulled from his suit coat pocket a copy of the union questionnaire I had in my possession, you would have had even more TV fireworks. The Foley campaign has since come into possession of the same documents and released them to the media.

At issue is the "Election Year 2010 Endorsement Questionnaire" submitted to the Malloy campaign by the "Administrative And Residual Employees Union Local 4200." The Malloy camp was asked 13 questions, including several that led to Foley's accurate portrayal, during the debate. For example, on question 4, when asked, "Will you support state employee layoffs, after the gubernatorial agreement ends in July 2011," the Malloy campaign answered "We've been very clear that we have no interest in laying off state employees."

On question 2, when asked about privatization, the Malloy campaign's answer: "We are against the privatization of public services currently performed by state and municipal workers and believe that many services currently done by private contractors could be done publically at less cost and with improved results. As Mayor of Stamford, Dan de-privatized services such as garbage collection and recycling and they performed at greater savings and efficiencies."

In the same questionnaire, the Malloy campaign also came out in support of binding arbitration. When Foley also challenged Malloy on the promises he made to the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, during a recent teleconference, Malloy angered again, attacking Foley as being anti teacher. It was one of the oldest attorney tricks in the books, by the long time lawyer: don't acknowledge the charge and turn the tables on your opponent. At last check, Malloy, who like Foley is a millionaire but doesn't want you to know that, still hadn't answered the question. To do otherwise, would have had required an admission that during that conference call, Malloy pledged to teachers his support for binding arbitration and underwriting the teachers' pension fund, while opposing merit pay.

Foley's point is that taxes will skyrocket under Malloy and government will grow, off of the promises Malloy has made to the unions. The former Stamford mayor knows that, which is why he's denying the existence of these deals. His platform stands in stark contract to Foley's "no tax hike pledge." It is probably why Malloy adopted his hard boiled, some might say bullying demeanor, during Tuesday's debate. Better to deflect the charges of your opponent, before a large television audience, than explain what promises have really been made, even if it makes your opponent look more statesmen like in the process.

McMahon Never Said It

2010-09-30T17:44:00.000-07:00

Certain members of the media, miffed at their limited access to Linda McMahon, during Connecticut's contentious U.S. Senate race, have opted to take poetic license with her comments today at an impromtu press conference in East Hartford. Fresh off an appearance at a small business event, where she received the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business, the GOP candidate seemed to embrace the group's stance opposing a hike in the minimum wage.

At the news conference, Ted Mann, reporter with the Day of New London, asked her if the minimum wage should be reduced. McMahon, who is in a statistical dead heat with the "overwhelming" favorite, Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, in the latest polls, refused to answer the question. Other reporters followed with similar questions and McMahon wisely would not be trapped. The media then ran with a very liberal interpretation, that McMahon supported a lowering of the minimum wage, something she never said. Thus, these journalists have placed themselves smack in the middle of the story, instead of reporting it, while seemingly demonstrating a bias favoring Blumenthal, who has also limited his media accessibility since his Vietnam fiasco.

Needless to say, the Democratic Party operatives, expending resources in a race they thought was a slamdunk, are now heating up the blogosphere with "comments" McMahon never made, the surest sign of desperation, just four days before the first debate between the two candidates.

In the 32 days leading up to this all important election, Democrats will attempt any manuever to take the electorate's eye off the ball, namely the party's poor performance. In Connecticut's case, their strategy is to motivate their liberal base to vote on Nov. 2, while hopefully picking off some independents, who now favor McMahon over Blumenthal. Their manufactured minimum wage issue, heightened by a media desperate to be a part of the story, will fail, simply because McMahon's comments ring true with so many.

Small business, the backbone of this country's economy, as we were reminded by President Obama just the other day, is flailing, especially in Connecticut, handcuffed by an anti-business state legislature, controlled in veto proof numbers by the Democrats, and an anti-business state attorney general, who just happens to be McMahon's Senate opponent. The goal is to divert attention from Blumenthal's record, because his testimony doesn't square with his record.

As the man, who lied about his Vietnam military service now boasts of lowering people's electric bills, the public witnesses rates climbing higher and higher. As the man, who claims to be the workers' best friend, embellishes how he has helped the economy with his activist approach to the position, jobs are leaving the state in droves, while the unemployment rate climbs, especially in urban areas, where double-digit jobless rates are the norm. Meanwhile, the man, who claims to be a "Washington" outsider, embraces the help of Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. These are the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal.

In reality, today in East Hartford, Linda McMahon brought up concerns and issues of small business, which deserve exploration. It's an approach that obviously appears foreign to those who mistakenly believe government is the answer to all their problems.

JARJURA TO SERVE OUT TERM

2010-08-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura told me on the radio this morning, that he will serve out his term. "Oh absolutely, absolutely," he answered, when I asked him it appeared he was trying to escape Waterbury, by seeking elective office this year. The Mayor flirted with running for governor, then Lt. governor, before getting trounced in Tuesday's Democratic primary for state comptroller, by convention endorsed candidate Kevin Lembo.
The mayor said he ran for state office because he is "fearful for the working people of this state." He sees a pending financial crisis, with the state facing a $3B deficit next year and he wanted to take a conservative, fiscal approach to fix the problem. The Mayor also called the proposed paid sick leave bill, supported by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, anti-business.
As for reports Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly may be under a grand jury investigation, that some are calling "explosive," Jarjura told me he was "saddened" by the story, but that is all he knows about it. He called Connelly an "extremely effective prosecutor in Waterbury for a very, very long time." He also said his administration has nothing to hide. He will open up the city's books to anyone. "In 10 years as mayor, there has not been a whisper of impropriety," he said.

Governor Owes Us The Truth

2010-07-02T07:38:00.001-07:00

Can somebody explain to me how Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez can be convicted on five counts, including bribery, and be allowed to return to his office for a week, with unfettered access to his files, while State Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph P. Marie is summoned to the Capitol for an emergency meeting, tenders his resignation, and then is locked out of his office and his email and access accounts? If you ask me, there is more to the Marie departure story than meets the eye.
I don’t buy the explanation put forth by Gov. M. Jodi Rell that Marie, just two years on the job, wanted to leave to spend more time with his family; not when he had a full schedule for the remainder of the week.
By all accounts, Marie had been doing an outstanding job as commissioner, improving morale in a rivalry-torn department, while attempting to promote state officials’ desire for more mass transportation, a Marie specialty. In fact, the state is preparing to apply for a federal grant to help underwrite it’s much coveted New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, with Marie guiding the effort. Now, all of a sudden he’s gone? He has a week’s worth of appointments, yet on a moment’s notice, he’s called to see the governor, tenders his resignation, then is locked out of his office? If he wants to return to pick up any personal items, he must be accompanied by a guard? And we’re supposed to believe it’s because he wants to spend more time with his family, while pursuing other employment opportunities? I don’t believe it for a New York minute.
I also don’t believe, he left because of a rocky relationship with the governor’s Chief-of-Staff Lisa Moody, or because that Virgin Airlines plane was stuck on the Bradley International Airport tarmac for four hours, following last week’s emergency landing.
The governor’s office is telling us, at a time when Connecticut’s transportation issues are at a critical juncture, the man she brought to the state to head the rejuvenation effort, suddenly wants to say adios, even as he’s receiving praise from both sides of the aisle? I just don’t believe it.
Such an abrupt departure, suggests to me, he was called to the governor’s office and for whatever reason - maybe a complaint was filed? - was told to resign. The entire story smacks of a cover up, by among others, an administration that promised a different, more open style of government, when it assumed the reigns of power, after the Rowland scandals, six years ago.
The administration and legislature have bombarded us with stories on how Connecticut’s outdated transportation infrastructure needs a major facelift, and now the savior of this endeavor suddenly resigns? And isn’t allowed back into the office unless accompanied by a guard? And both he and the governor are tight lipped about his resignation?
I don’t buy Gov. Rell’s or Commissioner Marie’s explanations. My instincts tell me there is plenty to this story, that we are not being told. Gov. Rell owes us the truth. That is what she promised, six years ago. The General Assembly’s transportation committee needs to call a special hearing to rout out the truth. The taxpayers of Connecticut are at least owed that much.

Why Ned Lamont Could Be Our Next Governor

2010-06-30T07:02:00.000-07:00

Why Ned Lamont Could Be Governor

It is not inconceivable that Ned Lamont could be Connecticut’s next governor. We keep hearing about the November elections being a game changer. That could happen nationwide, but it is going to take a Scott Brown-like eruption to turn around deep blue Connecticut, and that bodes well for Lamont.
For starters, Lamont must defeat Democratic Party convention endorsed candidate Dannel Malloy. With six weeks to go to the Aug. 10 primary, Lamont has a sizeable lead in the polls. Malloy’s candidacy didn’t resonate with the public four years ago, when he was endorsed by the convention and lost to John DeStefano in the primary, and it is not resonating now.
Lamont has two big advantages, name recognition and his own money. In fact, of all the gubernatorial candidates on both sides, polls show Lamont has the name recognition, a major advantage. The casual political observer will remember Lamont in a positive way, “as the guy who ran against Joe Lieberman.” Lamont will continue to pour money into political ads across the media spectrum. Combined with what I predict will be a major turnout of union members on election day, a Lamont victory is very possible.
And do not underestimate that union turnout. Feeling threatened by a possible Republican take over of state and federal offices, the public employee and private sector union leadership, will rev up its base. The thousands of union employees, combined with their family members and friends, should translate into votes for Lamont and U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, despite the AG’s Vietnam flap and Linda McMahon’s millions, if she is the GOP Senate nominee.
Currently, some Democratic operatives are predicting gloom and doom for their party, because of the party infighting over Lamont and Malloy, but this is not unusual. The Democrats’ history is to unite around their candidate, after the primary vote, while Republicans tend to not vote in the general election, if their candidate doesn’t win the primary.
Finally, Lamont will appeal to unaffiliated voters and even some conservatives, despite his liberal leanings. He can point to his business success, even though the Malloy camp is claiming Lamont laid off workers, while taking a salary for himself. Malloy will also be hurt by the tried and true liberal comment made by his campaign consultant Roy Occhiogrosso. As Lamont tries to portray himself as the outsider with a business background, Occhiogrosso says Lamont is “fundamentally wrong in his belief the state should run like a business.” With Connecticut facing huge budget deficits, that is a statement, which won’t play well with moderates and Democratic leaning conservatives.
Although I believe Connecticut needs a good dose of conservative government to right its course, the reality is, as you examine the voter registration rolls, Lamont and Blumenthal could very well have public sector jobs, after Nov. 2.

QUESTIONS FOR LINDA

2010-06-18T05:06:00.000-07:00

Here's a primer for people, who call radio talk shows, the next time U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon appears on a call-in show. They might want to ask the Republican party convention-endorsed candidate these questions:

-As CEO of the WWE, how did you justify steroid use by your wrestlers?
-Did you ever take steroids and if so, how did you obtain them?
-Why did the WWE take videos down from the internet, that included skits that appeared to be public sex in a wrestling ring and simulated rape?
-How do you justify the WWE skit of two female wrestlers stripping down to their underwear, "making out" in the ring, and then being beat up by two large men, as being entertainment?
-As CEO of the WWE, how did you justify the WWE Lingerie Contest, where women strip down in the ring, and then rub their body parts against the sensitive areas of judge Randy Orton?
-Explain to us the reasoning behind the skit, where a scantily-clad female wrestler enters the lockerroom, and starts making out with a male wrestler?
-Describe to the audience the WWE character Eugene?
-Have you read "Chris and Nancy - The True Story of the Benoit Murder- Suicide and Pro Wrestling's Cocktail of Death," by Irv Muchnick.
-Where do you stand on the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
-Why did you donate to then congressional candidate Rham Emmanual's campaign?
-Why did you donate to groups, who funneled campaign contributions to liberal PACs supporting, among others, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

And if you are told these questions aren't relevant to the current campaign, just counter by saying that would seem to dismiss family values issues and discussion of a candidate's resume, when deciding for whom to vote.

FAMILY VALUES?

2010-06-10T04:11:00.000-07:00

I've met U.S. Republican candidate Linda McMahon a couple of times and interviewed her twice on my afternoon radio program. She seems like a nice person. I don't know about her personal family values nor does anyone else, unless you actually exist in the McMahon family environment. But I do know the business she headed until last year, WWE, has made its millions off of anything but family values, regardless of how many donations have been made to the troops or Get Out The Youth Vote campaigns WWE has funded.

Put it this way, the fake wrestling matches promoted by WWE, which score high television ratings, are not the wrestling matches your grandparents watched on TV or witnessed at the Hartford Civic Center and New Haven Coliseum. The steel-caged matches of Andre the Giant and George "the Animal" Steele are a far cry from the sex and abuse that passes for today's WWE. This is the same sex and demeaning of women that McMahon's campaign supporters legitimize by calling such presentation "entertainment."

Abuse? We will never know how extensive the drug and steroid abuse was among WWE "independent contractors." But it would be a legitimate question to ask the GOP endorsed Senate candidate, whether she used steroids. Don't expect the query in the friendly forums, where she chooses to appear. And don't expect the friendly talkshow hosts to bring up the family value issue either, the next time she appears as a guest.

We do know the business on which she has made her millions - used to underwrite this Senate campaign - promotes women in a wrestling ring, stripping down to their bras and panties, while engaging in a lengthly liplock, in front of millions watching on TV. Afterwhich, two big men then enter the ring to beat them up. And did I mention the WWE Lingerie Contest judged by Randy Orton? That's the event, where women strip down to their underwear in the ring, then walk over to rub against Orton's more sensitive body parts. Let's not forget the scantily clad female wrestler who walks into the lockerroom, to give her male counterpart a long kiss, before he enters the ring.

Entertainment? I ask you, would you want to sit down with your granddaughter or grandson to watch this? Most men wouldn't sit down with their wives to watch this garbage. Yet McMahon, who was the CEO of the WWE, promoted this programming genre. And now her supporters legitimize such programming by saying she's a great businesswoman. Some even say they will campaign for her.

I say check out You Tube, before WWE pulls down even more controversial videos, and watch what passes for family values these days, before deciding on which candidate you will cast your vote.

MELTDOWN CONTINUES

2010-05-18T04:48:00.000-07:00

Under the spotlight of a high profile campaign, "Blumenthal For Senate" continues its meltdown. What is ironic about this latest development, is how much the defendant sounds like the many businesses and people he targets.

At issue is Blumenthal's military service and his comments, apparently on numerous occasions, that he served in Vietnam. According to Fox 61 News, the "McMahon For Senate" campaign fed the New York Times the story. Whoever was the source, it was a bombshell, embellished by a video clearly showing Blumenthal, claiming he served in Vietnam.

What's even more disturbing, are the numerous deferments Blumenthal received, before enrolling in the Marine Reserves. While American teenagers were losing their lives, serving their country, Blumenthal was leading the life of the priviledged, obviously using his friendship with the politically well connected, including eventual U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, in order to avoid service, until he couldn't pull off the ruse anymore. But even then, he managed to land a cushy encampment in Washington, D.C., after his Parris Island training.

Blumenthal's credibility has become so fractured, not even his days at Harvard can be trusted. According the NYT expose, numerous Blumenthal biographys stated he was captain of the Harvard swim team. In reality, he was never a member of the swim team.

Now he sounds like so many other politicians, who have wilted under the spotlight, from Nixon to Spitzer. "I may have misspoken," he said. "My intention was to be always clear and straightforward."

Nonsense. This is a man, whose huge staff has scrutinized his every word and appearance, to insure a carefully crafted image that casts Blumenthal in the best possible light. Of this, I can attest. His staff recently contacted my radio producer, on a story I was doing about the attorney general, before it even aired. Blumenthal, as he did with the MSNBC video about not accepting PAC money, intentionally allows ambigious statements to stand, if it casts him in the best possible light, despite the lack of credibility the story may have.

Now the Blumenthal defenders are out slandering the NYT, claiming the piece is a hatchet job. Laughable. The Blumenthal Democrats are sounding like Republicans, now that they face similar NYT scrutiny.

Sadly, the candidate who gets shutout here, is his opponent for the Democratic Party U.S. Senate nomination, Merrick Alpert. Denied from speaking about his candidacy, before half of the Democratic Town committees manipulated by the Blumenthal machine, Alpert goes into this weekend's convention a long shot. Articulate, with firmly entrenched convictions, Alpert served his country, nobly, in Bosnia. In light of this latest Blumenthal fiasco, Alpert deserves the first look he was never given by his party, this weekend in Hartford.

DOES HE WANT OUT?

2010-05-11T04:50:00.001-07:00

Before all is said and done, Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura may be running for dog catcher in Podunk. First, he was flirting with seeking the Democratic Party gubernatorial nomination. Last week, at a sparsely attended news conference, he announced his candidacy for Lt. Governor. Now than Dannel Malloy has picked State Comptroller Nancy Wyman as his running mate, crowding the race for Lt. Governor candidates, word is Jarjura will seek to be the party's nominee for state comptroller.

What is becoming patently obvious is Jarjura wants out as Waterbury mayor, for whatever reason. His openly public search for a job, underwritten by the taxpayers, while currently being paid by taxpayers in the Brass City - try searching for a job in the private sector in this manner - leads one to conclude something is up in the center of the universe.

The Mayor has come under increasing criticism for advocating a major property tax hike to balance Waterbury's precarious finances. Furthermore, controversy seems to be swirling around his administration, from "Captain Blight," an obvious patronage job, to the mess enveloping school custodians. Combine this with the ever critical editorials about him, appearing in the Republican-American, and Jarjura may figure it's time to get out, while the going is good.

If the mayor gets shutout at this month's party convention, one must wonder if the self described wealthy entrepreneur might resign. One thing is for certain, Jarjura apparently doesn't want to be Mayor of Waterbury, by his continuous efforts to shop around for other employment.

DEMS WILL USE RELL FOR COVER

2010-05-07T05:05:00.000-07:00

Make no mistake; Democrats in the state legislature are upset the Republicans walked away from any budget deal. They needed bipartisanship for the fall elections. So as they slap themselves on the back, offering congratulations for a balanced budget, that uses every gimmick in the book - some which would land the private sector in jail - they are drawing battle lines for the November elections.

"It doesn't play into a partisan narrative, that they (GOP) have been trying to portray that Hartford is broken, that there would be gridlock, that there would be no resolution of the deficits, that nothing would get done. That narrative has been blown out of the water. They have to find a new narrative because Democrats in the legislature worked with a Republican governor..." said Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr., who apparently is in love with taxes and narratives.

In reality, there is no gridlock in Hartford, but there is partisanship. That's why the Democrats need Gov. Rell to sell the public that the Republicans are a part of this catastrophe. The Democrats dominate the legislature and have increased spending and added hidden taxes in this latest bill, all to balance a budget, which will fall under its own weight in due course, while handing a new governor massive deficits. But the Democrats' strategy is obvious; unable to find the bipartisan support they needed in the General Assembly, they will use Gov. Rell, a Republican In Name Only, as their cover.

The real story is how upset Republicans in the legislature are with Gov. Rell. In public and in private, they have expressed annoyance at her dismissal of GOP budgetary objectives in her negotiations with Democrats. That's why House and Senate Republicans walked out of the talks. Leadership believed Rell, not seeking reelection, had the perfect chance to take a stand against the tax and spend Democrats, especially in an election year. Instead, she has once again left her own party in the lurch. As Connecticut sinks under its unsustainable spending policies, legislative Republicans will be happy to say good riddance to a governor from their own party.

RATES WILL RISE

2010-05-05T03:42:00.000-07:00

Less than an hour ago, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed SB 493, "An act reducing electricity costs and promoting renewable energy. The vote was 81-40, with 30 absent. Presumably, the absent ran for cover, for fear they could pay a political price in November. Late last night, the Senate voted 20-14 in favor of the bill.

Under repeated questioning from Rep. Sean Williams, R-Watertown, the co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, failed to answer pointed questions about the bill. And she is the one pushing hard for it. She could not even guarantee that electricity rates would drop, which is a promise of the bill. What the bill would do is crimp the electricity supplier market, just as the concept is beginning to resonate with the public.

The debate at 5:30 this morning was emblematic of how the General Assembly does business. under the liberal Democrats: pass a massive overhaul bill, friendly to the extreme left, without major public hearings, in the early morning hours, in the hope it might work, all the while raising our rates. Our only hope is Gov. Rell will veto the bill.

Now Over $3 Per

2010-04-26T06:08:00.000-07:00

The "experts" predicted we would top $3 per gallon for regular gasoline by Memorial Day. Some even said the prices had topped out. I knew better, predicting on my radio program, that we would top $3 per long before Memorial Day. Well, here we are, five weeks before Memorial Day and I spent $3.04 per gallon for regular. So much for the economic recovery.

Anyone who thinks we are on the road to recovery is deluding themselves. At best, the recovery has been fragile, jobless and underwritten by deficit spending at the national level and budget gimmickry at the state and municipal level. Now that we've topped $3 per gallon, you can expect the tumbling act to begin.

$3 per gallon is not only a pricey figure but a psychological one. A consumer sees $3 per gallon and suddenly decides to cut back on driving, going out to a restaurant or even holding back on that extra cup of coffee. $3 per gallon hits you like a slap in the face, when you pull into the convenience store to "fill 'er up." $3 per gallon will have a reverberating effect, because unlike the last time we saw numerous price spikes, businesses will not wait to pass the cost along to consumers.

Two years ago, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal promised an investigation into high gasoline prices. How's it going? In 2006, as Democrats fought to regain control of Congress, they attacked the Bush administration, because gasoline prices had topped $3 per gallon and promised hearings and investigations, if they won power. They are now into their fourth year of power. When do the hearings and investigations start?

This country can promote mass transportation all it wants, but Americans love their cars and SUV's. The outcry will begin any day now, because Americans have a difficult time with $3 per gallon. And it's still five weeks before Memorial Day.

It's What He Doesn't Say, That Counts

2010-04-22T05:00:00.000-07:00

As usual, with Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, you have to listen to what he doesn't say to determine, where he stands on the issue. He has become a master of the trick, in his long tenure as AG, but the glare of a U.S. Senate campaign is shining light on how he operates.

Earlier this week, campaign fundraising reports were released by the candidates, and as it turns out, Blumenthal accepted at least $118,000 in PAC money, leading to a crescendo of criticism from his opponents. Blumenthal, in his own words, was constantly repeated, from his interview on MSNBC, one day after he announced his Senate candidacy.

"I've never taken PAC money. I've rejected special interest money because I've stood strong and have taken legal action against many of those special interests," Blumenthal said.

Now comes word, the "Blumenthal for Senate" campaign has taken money from the Senate PACs of Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and AFLAC, the insurance company. When the Linda McMahon campaign cried foul, noting his MSNBC comments, Blumenthal's people were quick to respond.

"Given what we've learned about Linda McMahon, it's laughable for her to question Dick Blumenthal's integrity...The people of Connecticut know Dick Blumenthal will take on powerful interests and fight tirelessly for them in the Senate," said his campaign chairman Michael Cacace.

Blumenthal maintains that "integrity" by what he did not say. While creating the illusion of not accepting PAC money, Blumenthal never stated in the MSNBC interview he would not take PAC money as a Senate candidate, and his chairman never addressed the PAC issue in his comments, instead taking the opportunity to criticize McMahon's personal fortune to underwrite her campaign.

In examining Blumenthal, one must always listen to what he does not say. By scrutinizing his campaign contributions, you can make the case a vote for Dick Blumenthal is a vote for three of the Senate's biggest liberals, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and a company, who's trademark is a duck. In other words, a vote for Blumenthal won't be what it's quacked up to be.

The Inclusive Party?

2010-04-14T05:22:00.000-07:00

I thought the Democrat Party billed itself as the inclusive party, the party that included all factions, then ironed out its differences and paraded out a united front?

Apparently not. Just ask Merrick Alpert, the "other" candidate for the U.S. Senate Democrat Party nomination in Connecticut. He's battling the overwhelming favorite, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Alpert cannot even get the time of day from his party hierarchy. His crime? Having the unmitigated gall to partake in the democratic process by seeking public office.

Democrat State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo all but ignores him. While Blumenthal receives special treatment, with "verbal" permission to run a Senate campaign office out of Democrat state party central in Hartford - the type of cozy arrangement, Blumenthal would investigate as AG - DiNardo remains mum, except to instruct Democrat town committees to thwart Alpert's ambitions. The party establishment is operating at full speed.

Alpert, who has served his country in Bosnia, is hoping to gather the 15 percent of party delegates at next month's convention, to insure a primary. If he fails that, he plans to gather enough petitions to force a primary against the long time establishment candidate Blumenthal. He may become the Democrats worst nightmare. In the two joint appearances he made with Blumenthal, he outperformed the AG, in style, preparation and articulation. His only fault is not being part of the establishment.

On Monday night, he turned out to be the smartest Democrat in the state. While party fatcats were giving Blumenthal a standing ovation at the annual Jefferson, Jackson, Bailey dinner, Alpert chose to ignore the event, donating the $175 a pop it cost to hear Blumy and others speak to a soup kitchen. It may be the best $175, he ever spent.

Larson Plays While You Work

2010-04-09T04:46:00.000-07:00

As you slog to work today, amid rain and wind, in Connecticut's first congressional district and elsewhere, just remember that your congressman is holding a $5,000 a pop campaign fundraiser in Napa Valley wine country. (Apparently the wine industry in his home state, doesn't deserve his business.)

The congressman hails from the same Democratic party, that has its nose out of joint over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld an entity's first amendment rights to donate to campaigns. The Democrats say that portion of the private sector's money is bad for politics. But it is okay for a congressman to arrange fundraisers in wine country, arrange for a donor to witness Boston Red Sox batting practice - for a price, of course - and utilize other connections to garner greenbacks, all in the name of "creating a more perfect union," to borrow one of Larson's favorite lines.

Larson defenders, who love to slam the Republican party of being the party for the rich and famous, will remind us the donation actually goes to the political action committee Synergy and that it is the price of doing business. Except Synergy is Larson's PAC, allowing him to funnel money - some would say launder - to any political candidate, whose political agenda coincides with his.

The Democrats have controlled the Congress for six years and could have changed the system. And we wonder why there is a vast disconnect between our Washington and Hartford politicians and the public.

So as you work to make ends meet in this terrible economy, remember, donors are apparently forgetting about carbon footprints and winging out to Napa, remember that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her aide-de-camp, Connecticut Congressman John Larson, will be tossing back cabernet in wine country this weekend, all in the name of a "more perfect union."

The Whole Story Stinks

2010-04-07T05:25:00.000-07:00

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz should end her run for Attorney General and take a leave from politics, now. This entire legal hassle over whether she qualifies, under the state constitution, to be AG, has become a sham.

We now know, through her deposition, that she has never authored a brief, been in a courtroom - since becoming a lawyer - to watch a trial, give legal arguments or question a witness. Yet, she is claiming to have practiced law for 10 years, thus meeting the qualifications for the job?

Even more disturbing is that she has taken free legal advice from the law firm of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy to prepare her case. How this passes legal muster, as the ethics and elections officials claim, is beyond me. Also, we have learned that she has taken legal advice from attorneys on her Secretary of the State staff. Did she do that on state time? Shouldn't she be charged? And for that matter, is she taking vacation time to give her depositions and make her subsequent court appearances, or is it on the taxpayers' dime. Because, let's face it, if she's in court or a lawyer's office, during the day, she is not on her job as Secretary of the State. And an explanation that she has a capable staff to cover for her, while she is away, doesn't cut it. You try being paid on the job, while appearing in court to advance your career opportunities.

The entire story stinks and Bysiewicz should end the charade pronto!

Stop The Bullying

2010-04-02T05:19:00.000-07:00

I cannot get the suicide of Phoebe Prince out of my mind. But for the grace of God, this could be any child. In January, the 15-year-old South Hadley High School student, the victim of intense bullying from "classmates," hanged herself. The case is receiving nationwide attention this week, because Mass. District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel indicted nine South Hadley High School students for their alleged part in this sad story.

Meanwhile, school administrators and the district's school superintendent, Gus A. Sayer, are coming under heavy criticism for their handling of the case. Sayer, who cut short a California vacation to return to the Commonwealth, is defending teachers and administrators involved in the story. That's understandable. An entire school administration, under his watch, has been placed on trial in this case.

Connecticut has taken steps to stop bullying, passing laws to address the problem. That doesn't mean bullying doesn't occur. According to The Governor's Prevention Partnership, almost one in three Connecticut high school students "report having been the target of bullying in the past 12 months."

Next week, with numerous school administrators in the audience, and all day seminar on the topic will be held in Farmington. Although Connecticut may be in the vanguard on this issue, a nationwide discussion must follow. And it deserves to be examined from all sides, including cyberbullying. Numerous questions need to be asked. What are the parents roll in all of this? What's the difference between normal adolescent behavior and bullying? And can we tackle this problem with current resources? Because, let's face it, as a state and nation, we are financially tapped out.

Some officials will use this sobering topic to demand more taxpayers' money. But a caller to my radio program yesterday, a "Suzanne in Bristol," said she and other parents stepped forward to offer an innovative program to address bullying 10 years ago, without using taxpayers' money. It will require this sort of creative thinking to underwrite a safe environment for our children. The teenage demographic is filled with innate obstacles. And we spend billions on education. But students should not feel threatened, when attending school.

Passing the buck on the South Hadley case - and that is what officials seem to be doing in that town - is unacceptable. A national discourse needs to start now. We owe it to the memory of Phoebe Prince.

Alpert Can't Catch A Break

2010-03-30T04:50:00.000-07:00

Merrick Alpert must feel like the team, facing an umpire that works for his opponent. Alpert, you may recall, is the man, who cleaned the clock of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in the one and only debate, between the two candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. Senate. In reality, he's nothing more than a pest to the Democratic Party establishment.

Nancy DiNardo, the state party chairman, wishes he would just go away. So much for a chairman, who is above the fray, allowing the candidates to battle it out for the nomination. Blumenthal is the handpicked candidate of the Obama administration and DiNardo isn't about to do anything to upset the party apparatchik.

Alpert wants more debates with Blumenthal, but the AG won't give him any. You can understand why. Alpert looked like the New York Yankees playing the Bad News Bears in their Mar. 1 tete-a-tete. Alpert was vibrant, articulate and elucidated his positions on the issues. Blumenthal looked tired, stumbled and generally appeared uncomfortable from out behind his Attorney General's desk, before his quick getaway after the event, eschewing the media.

Now, thanks to some great reporting by the Norwich Bulletin, comes word Blumenthal has been allowed to set up a Senate candidate's office at state party central headquarters in Hartford. But how much is he paying for the space? When the Bulletin reporter asked, party officials said they'd get back. Turns out they could not find any documentation. Then, after some more stumbling, they called the reporter back, stating there was a verbal agreement between Blumenthal and party officials.

Hmmmm. This sounds like an arrangement the Attorney General should be investigating. It's right up his alley. Favoritism. No written contract. Except, this time, Blumenthal is on the accusing end. The Federal Elections Commission is even probing into the matter, although methinks nothing will happen, because the case involves the party establishment.

Meanwhile, DiNardo continues to take potshots at Alpert, who has the unmitigated gall of placing trust in the democratic system. He says he will battle Blumenthal right to the convention and might even seek a primary, if he doesn't receive the nod. Here's hoping democracy prevails.

Government Takes Care of Itself

2010-03-25T02:28:00.000-07:00

How come it is okay for government officials to nominate their own for other government jobs, but other government officials have to wait a year, before going to work for a lobby firm in the private sector? And whatever happened to equal opportunity employment?
These are questions, which need to be asked, with word Governor M. Jodi Rell has nominated two members of her administration to Superior Court judgeships. Public Safety Commissioner John Danaher will be out of a job, once her administration ends in January. Same for her budget director Robert Genuario. Neither need not worry about seeking work in the private sector. Both have been nominated to be Superior Court Judges. After the usual gamesmanship and horse swapping by the Democrats on the legislature's judiciary committee, both will be approved, assured of a healthy salary, generous benefits and a handsome pension. Neither will have to sit out a year. Neither will be overtly subjected to EOE laws government has hoisted on the private sector.
Of course, this happens all the time, even though Gov. Rell continues to act "above the fray." Lose an election? You need not worry. Either major party will hire you for a taxpayer funded legislative job, that pays much more than the private sector. And the politicians wonder why there is a huge chasm between the government and its people?
Those who work for a governor, or serve in a government post, should be forced to sit out for at least a year, before they return to work in government. In the interim, it's the same old story and Gov. Rell is as much a part of the culture, regardless of how much she attempts to act "above the fray."

No Blumy Surprise

2010-03-23T18:23:00.000-07:00

That state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal did not join in with 13 other attorneys general to challenge the Obama Healthcare bill comes as no surprise. Blumenthal, who is trying to distance himself from Sen. Dodd, is walking arm-and-arm with his policies. Dodd placed the $100M UConn hospital payoff in the bill and House members didn't remove it. Blumenthal supports Obamacare and the cost that goes with it. Changing the Washington culture means not voting for Blumenthal in the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Simple as that. The state's Republicans and Independents, both groups that give Blumy strong marks, need to come to that realization.