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.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Senator Has Marijuana Concerns
Sen. John Kissel R-Enfield, says he has concerns about the medical marijuana bill,
under debate in legislative committee, but he's even more concerned about another
bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession of under one ounce to a $99 fine.
On my radio program, Sen. Kissel said "Decriminalization is the real scary thing.
There's no distinction in the bill on whether a 14 year old or 40 year old is
caught with marijuana."
The senator is also concerned what message decriminalization would send to young
people. "I have a 15 year old and a seven year old."
The notion being advanced by supporters that decriminalization would lower crime
and prison rates also has Sen. Kissel disturbed. "As my colleague Rep. Larry
Caffero (R-Norwalk) said, 'Follow the money. Where are people going to get the
marijuana?' From organized crime. It's going to lead to more violent crime.
Besides, jails are not clogged with people in there for marijuana possession,
as supporters say."
To wit, a Litchfield Superior court judge recently handed down a four-year
suspended sentence and fine to a Cornwall man for growing 241 marijuana plants
in his home.
When the issue of problems other states have, following decriminalization of
marijuana possession, was brought up, Sen. Kissel said lawmakers who support
the bill did not have an answer for that either, apparently content to parade
out advocates of the bill to speak.
In other words, the bill is so loosely written, liberals will have to pass it in
order to see what's in it.
under debate in legislative committee, but he's even more concerned about another
bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession of under one ounce to a $99 fine.
On my radio program, Sen. Kissel said "Decriminalization is the real scary thing.
There's no distinction in the bill on whether a 14 year old or 40 year old is
caught with marijuana."
The senator is also concerned what message decriminalization would send to young
people. "I have a 15 year old and a seven year old."
The notion being advanced by supporters that decriminalization would lower crime
and prison rates also has Sen. Kissel disturbed. "As my colleague Rep. Larry
Caffero (R-Norwalk) said, 'Follow the money. Where are people going to get the
marijuana?' From organized crime. It's going to lead to more violent crime.
Besides, jails are not clogged with people in there for marijuana possession,
as supporters say."
To wit, a Litchfield Superior court judge recently handed down a four-year
suspended sentence and fine to a Cornwall man for growing 241 marijuana plants
in his home.
When the issue of problems other states have, following decriminalization of
marijuana possession, was brought up, Sen. Kissel said lawmakers who support
the bill did not have an answer for that either, apparently content to parade
out advocates of the bill to speak.
In other words, the bill is so loosely written, liberals will have to pass it in
order to see what's in it.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
SOCIALIST CONNECTICUT
Now that the Democrat-Working Family Party elected officials occupy every Constitutional Office in Connecticut, their socialist ways have launched a full frontal assault on our constitution. Per usual, they are hoping most people will be working their remotes, more concerned with Charlie What's-His-Name. (I refuse to write his full name in this discourse.)
On Tuesday, proponents and opponents of the paid-sick leave bill spoke at a Labor and Public Employees Committee hearing. (Gov. Dannel Malloy -D, WFP, is the bill's biggest booster.) Turns out, under the bill, you don't even have to be sick to call in sick. It could be a family member. When all is said and done, you may be able to call in sick, if your fifth cousin has the sniffles, although we all know people don't abuse government mandated programs.
Among those speaking in support of the anti-business measure was State Comptroller Kevin Lembo- D, WFP. He even mentioned a survey, where eight million people in the United States went to work last year with the H1N1 virus, spreading it to another seven million people. Who knew we had an epidemic? And we tossed all that vaccine? And, by the way, who conducted the survey? And so much for Lembo serving as a state comptroller for all the people.
Then there is the story of Cheryl Folston of Newington, who told the committee she put off going to the doctor, because missing a day of work, driving special education students, would mean no pay. Once she was laid off, a doctor found she had a heart ailment. Although we can all empathize with Ms. Folston's condition, why couldn't she have gone to the doctor, when the students had a scheduled day off? There are school vacations and numerous days off built into the school calendar. And who knew the bill also covered pre-existing conditions?
In reality, paid sick leave is emblematic of the socialists, like Dannel 88, his Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, Lembo and their fellow Working Family Party members, spreading the wealth and penalizing those who work hard to start up and own businesses. The paid sick leave perk is something, which should be decided between a union and it's employees, during collective bargaining. As the private-sector union movement wanes in this country, the socialists, who dominate Connecticut government, will attempt to impose their distorted view of the constitution by fiat, unless a public more concerned with Charlie what's-his-name starts paying attention.
On Tuesday, proponents and opponents of the paid-sick leave bill spoke at a Labor and Public Employees Committee hearing. (Gov. Dannel Malloy -D, WFP, is the bill's biggest booster.) Turns out, under the bill, you don't even have to be sick to call in sick. It could be a family member. When all is said and done, you may be able to call in sick, if your fifth cousin has the sniffles, although we all know people don't abuse government mandated programs.
Among those speaking in support of the anti-business measure was State Comptroller Kevin Lembo- D, WFP. He even mentioned a survey, where eight million people in the United States went to work last year with the H1N1 virus, spreading it to another seven million people. Who knew we had an epidemic? And we tossed all that vaccine? And, by the way, who conducted the survey? And so much for Lembo serving as a state comptroller for all the people.
Then there is the story of Cheryl Folston of Newington, who told the committee she put off going to the doctor, because missing a day of work, driving special education students, would mean no pay. Once she was laid off, a doctor found she had a heart ailment. Although we can all empathize with Ms. Folston's condition, why couldn't she have gone to the doctor, when the students had a scheduled day off? There are school vacations and numerous days off built into the school calendar. And who knew the bill also covered pre-existing conditions?
In reality, paid sick leave is emblematic of the socialists, like Dannel 88, his Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, Lembo and their fellow Working Family Party members, spreading the wealth and penalizing those who work hard to start up and own businesses. The paid sick leave perk is something, which should be decided between a union and it's employees, during collective bargaining. As the private-sector union movement wanes in this country, the socialists, who dominate Connecticut government, will attempt to impose their distorted view of the constitution by fiat, unless a public more concerned with Charlie what's-his-name starts paying attention.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A TALE OF TWO GOVERNORS
One need only to look at Wisconsin, to understand how serious a problem Connecticut's budget woes are. While Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker offers real leadership in closing a budget gap, Connecticut's Democrat Governor Dannel Malloy is falling back on tried and true liberal tenets; tax, tax and tax more, to keep the public employee unions prosperous and a dependable voting base. So stark are the contrasts, that one can only dream Connecticut had such leadership.
How is it for example, that a state larger in land mass and nearly double Connecticut's population, has 33 state senators compared to our 36? Why is it, Wisconsin has a two-year $3.6B deficit and is cutting spending, while Connecticut faces a two-year $6B deficit and is increasing spending, underwriting it with the largest tax hike in state history?
Gov. Walker says what he is proposing to implement in a renowned blue-collar state, are budget cuts, while asking public employee unions -except for police and firefighters - to make more contributions to their health care and pensions, which would still be decidedly lower than what one in the private sector pays.
Gov. Malloy is hoping for union concessions, while raising the sales tax, imposing another retail tax on top of the sales tax, raising the income tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, adding a generation tax to our electric bill, and removing tax exemptions on goods and property. Meanwhile, the Democrat controlled General Assembly, while hailing the governor's budget, also talks about adding tolls, raising fees and imposing a five-cent tax on shoppers, who dare use plastic or paper bags.
Gov. Walker digs in his heals against a small, vocal minority - despite what the mainstream media claims is overwhelming opposition. Gov. Malloy, reminds us of what a leader he is, then protects his voter base at the expense of the remaining blue-collar electorate.
Gov. Malloy says we must sit down and negotiate with the unions. Gov. Walker says there is no room to negotiate, "We (Wisconsin) are broke." And their two-year deficit is $3.6B. What does that make Connecticut with a two-year $6B deficit?
Gov. Walker's financial aid to municipalities is to remove unfunded mandates. Gov. Malloy's financial aid to municipalities is to add the retail tax to the sales tax, while increasing the conveyance tax, with no plan to remove unfunded mandates.
Gov. Walker proposes to shrink government, getting it off the backs of the people. Gov. Malloy purports to reduce government, while increasing spending, taxes, continuing to borrow and use taxpayer money to experiment, underwriting the first vestiges of universal preschool.
Gov. Malloy says Connecticut is "open for business," then supports one of the worst anti-business bills in the country, paid sick leave. Gov. Walker takes real steps to cut government spending, taxes and over regulation, then says Wisconsin is open for business. You tell me to which state business will locate?
On and on it goes. Two new governors, facing the same problem, but offering different solutions. Gov. Walker pandering to his largest voting base, the people of Wisconsin. Gov. Malloy pandering to his, the public employee unions and liberal causes, at the expense of the people of Connecticut. One could only hope that some day, a Scott Walker will emerge in Connecticut. It is our only hope, as we sinking into oblivion, under our own financial duress.
How is it for example, that a state larger in land mass and nearly double Connecticut's population, has 33 state senators compared to our 36? Why is it, Wisconsin has a two-year $3.6B deficit and is cutting spending, while Connecticut faces a two-year $6B deficit and is increasing spending, underwriting it with the largest tax hike in state history?
Gov. Walker says what he is proposing to implement in a renowned blue-collar state, are budget cuts, while asking public employee unions -except for police and firefighters - to make more contributions to their health care and pensions, which would still be decidedly lower than what one in the private sector pays.
Gov. Malloy is hoping for union concessions, while raising the sales tax, imposing another retail tax on top of the sales tax, raising the income tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, adding a generation tax to our electric bill, and removing tax exemptions on goods and property. Meanwhile, the Democrat controlled General Assembly, while hailing the governor's budget, also talks about adding tolls, raising fees and imposing a five-cent tax on shoppers, who dare use plastic or paper bags.
Gov. Walker digs in his heals against a small, vocal minority - despite what the mainstream media claims is overwhelming opposition. Gov. Malloy, reminds us of what a leader he is, then protects his voter base at the expense of the remaining blue-collar electorate.
Gov. Malloy says we must sit down and negotiate with the unions. Gov. Walker says there is no room to negotiate, "We (Wisconsin) are broke." And their two-year deficit is $3.6B. What does that make Connecticut with a two-year $6B deficit?
Gov. Walker's financial aid to municipalities is to remove unfunded mandates. Gov. Malloy's financial aid to municipalities is to add the retail tax to the sales tax, while increasing the conveyance tax, with no plan to remove unfunded mandates.
Gov. Walker proposes to shrink government, getting it off the backs of the people. Gov. Malloy purports to reduce government, while increasing spending, taxes, continuing to borrow and use taxpayer money to experiment, underwriting the first vestiges of universal preschool.
Gov. Malloy says Connecticut is "open for business," then supports one of the worst anti-business bills in the country, paid sick leave. Gov. Walker takes real steps to cut government spending, taxes and over regulation, then says Wisconsin is open for business. You tell me to which state business will locate?
On and on it goes. Two new governors, facing the same problem, but offering different solutions. Gov. Walker pandering to his largest voting base, the people of Wisconsin. Gov. Malloy pandering to his, the public employee unions and liberal causes, at the expense of the people of Connecticut. One could only hope that some day, a Scott Walker will emerge in Connecticut. It is our only hope, as we sinking into oblivion, under our own financial duress.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX?
Are Connecticut's already overburdened taxpayers prepared
for a statewide property tax? Not really. But that is the ruse State Sen.
Joe Markley R-Southington says Gov. Dannel -
don't call me Dan - Malloy and General Assembly Democrats may use to
"sell" tax hikes to Connecticut residents.
With Connecticut facing at least a $3.5B debt for the next budget
cycle - some say it's more like $5B - tax hikes are a certainty with
Democrats in control of the Assembly and the governor's seat for the first
time in 20 years.
Sen. Markley is back in the legislature for the first time in nearly two decades.
He was the senator in 1991, who led the charge against the state income
tax supported by Gov. Lowell Weicker and his budget chief William Cibes -
who now collects an annual salary of $112,000, as the State University Chair
Emeritus." Sen. Markley cringes, when he hears Gov. Malloy's repeated phrase, "shared
sacrifice." He, like many others, interprets this to mean tax hikes. As well
he should. Dannel 88 has made no secret tax hikes will be part of his
budget address Feb. 16, even though he hasn't directly said so.
On my radio show, Sen. Markley said, "I've heard some talk that the governor
and Democrats will suggest a statewide property tax - as a means to help
relieve the debt - figuring the public outcry will be so great, that Democrats
will abandon the idea." That, Senator Markley suggests, will pave the way
for an increase in taxes and an elimination of certain tax exemptions as
"acceptable" alternatives.
That is why the special elections scheduled for Feb. 22, to fill nine vacant
seats in the Assembly, three in the Senate and six in the House, are so
important, Sen. Markley stated.
"If Republicans can win these three senate elections, that would give us 16
seats in the 36 seat Senate," he said. "If we could convince fiscally responsible
senators like Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, Paul Doyle, D-Newington and Joe Crisco,
D-Ansonia to side with Republicans, we could stop at least some of these tax hikes,"
Sen. Markley said.
Sen. Markley agreed with Senate Minority Leader John McKinney R-Fairfield, the
legislature can present a spending plan that reduces expenditures without raising taxes.
And that should be the GOP stance throughout this session. Oppose! Oppose!
Oppose! The Democrats, from Dannel 88, to his fellow-party members in the Assembly,
do not need one Republican vote to implement their tax-and-spend agenda, other than to
validate their liberal doctrine. They control all the
levers of power. Therefore, it is paramount the Republicans oppose everything
offered by Democrats, that represents tax and spending hikes. No "reaching across
the aisle," as suggested by some on the GOP "side," is necessary.
Every tax hike needs to be loudly opposed and the possible Democrat ruse of a
statewide-property tax exposed for what it really is,
a disguise to implement other tax hikes to cover the budgetary sins of previous
Democrat-dominated legislatures.
for a statewide property tax? Not really. But that is the ruse State Sen.
Joe Markley R-Southington says Gov. Dannel -
don't call me Dan - Malloy and General Assembly Democrats may use to
"sell" tax hikes to Connecticut residents.
With Connecticut facing at least a $3.5B debt for the next budget
cycle - some say it's more like $5B - tax hikes are a certainty with
Democrats in control of the Assembly and the governor's seat for the first
time in 20 years.
Sen. Markley is back in the legislature for the first time in nearly two decades.
He was the senator in 1991, who led the charge against the state income
tax supported by Gov. Lowell Weicker and his budget chief William Cibes -
who now collects an annual salary of $112,000, as the State University Chair
Emeritus." Sen. Markley cringes, when he hears Gov. Malloy's repeated phrase, "shared
sacrifice." He, like many others, interprets this to mean tax hikes. As well
he should. Dannel 88 has made no secret tax hikes will be part of his
budget address Feb. 16, even though he hasn't directly said so.
On my radio show, Sen. Markley said, "I've heard some talk that the governor
and Democrats will suggest a statewide property tax - as a means to help
relieve the debt - figuring the public outcry will be so great, that Democrats
will abandon the idea." That, Senator Markley suggests, will pave the way
for an increase in taxes and an elimination of certain tax exemptions as
"acceptable" alternatives.
That is why the special elections scheduled for Feb. 22, to fill nine vacant
seats in the Assembly, three in the Senate and six in the House, are so
important, Sen. Markley stated.
"If Republicans can win these three senate elections, that would give us 16
seats in the 36 seat Senate," he said. "If we could convince fiscally responsible
senators like Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, Paul Doyle, D-Newington and Joe Crisco,
D-Ansonia to side with Republicans, we could stop at least some of these tax hikes,"
Sen. Markley said.
Sen. Markley agreed with Senate Minority Leader John McKinney R-Fairfield, the
legislature can present a spending plan that reduces expenditures without raising taxes.
And that should be the GOP stance throughout this session. Oppose! Oppose!
Oppose! The Democrats, from Dannel 88, to his fellow-party members in the Assembly,
do not need one Republican vote to implement their tax-and-spend agenda, other than to
validate their liberal doctrine. They control all the
levers of power. Therefore, it is paramount the Republicans oppose everything
offered by Democrats, that represents tax and spending hikes. No "reaching across
the aisle," as suggested by some on the GOP "side," is necessary.
Every tax hike needs to be loudly opposed and the possible Democrat ruse of a
statewide-property tax exposed for what it really is,
a disguise to implement other tax hikes to cover the budgetary sins of previous
Democrat-dominated legislatures.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
AND THEY WANT TO RUN HEALTHCARE?
Starting Jan. 1, Connecticut's ban on the disposal of electronic waste took effect. With the proliferation of computers to other electronic gadgets, e-waste has become an issue. Thus a "system" was created to properly dispose of everything from computers to copy machines to cellphones and TV sets. No more just dumping them in the garbage.
The state also promised municipalities they would not pay a penny for disposing e-waste. They would create the apparatus to correctly rid the universe of this electronic trash. Except, Jan. 1 has come and gone, and the infrastructure isn't in place, leaving the cities and towns stuck with the bill.
It's not as if the state didn't have enough time to design a system. The law for e-waste was passed in 2007.
Then there's the hunting and fishing licensing fee fiasco. You may recall these fees were doubled last year to help "close" the state's mounting budget gap. The public outcry led state officials to repeal the hike. Except, what to do with those, who already paid the new, doubled fee? No problem. The state established a refund policy for those who ponied up additional dollars.
Now word is, the refund process, to in most cases be reimbursed $20, has become so cumbersome, mired in red tape, that most people have given up, after trying for six months, to get their money back. And these are the people who want to run health care? They cannot even set up a simple refund policy. And after four years, they still don't have an e-waste disposal system in place.
One can only hope the public will someday awaken to the fact government-run health care is nothing more than another power grab by a ruling class that will not be content, until it totally destroys our way of life.
The state also promised municipalities they would not pay a penny for disposing e-waste. They would create the apparatus to correctly rid the universe of this electronic trash. Except, Jan. 1 has come and gone, and the infrastructure isn't in place, leaving the cities and towns stuck with the bill.
It's not as if the state didn't have enough time to design a system. The law for e-waste was passed in 2007.
Then there's the hunting and fishing licensing fee fiasco. You may recall these fees were doubled last year to help "close" the state's mounting budget gap. The public outcry led state officials to repeal the hike. Except, what to do with those, who already paid the new, doubled fee? No problem. The state established a refund policy for those who ponied up additional dollars.
Now word is, the refund process, to in most cases be reimbursed $20, has become so cumbersome, mired in red tape, that most people have given up, after trying for six months, to get their money back. And these are the people who want to run health care? They cannot even set up a simple refund policy. And after four years, they still don't have an e-waste disposal system in place.
One can only hope the public will someday awaken to the fact government-run health care is nothing more than another power grab by a ruling class that will not be content, until it totally destroys our way of life.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Don't Blame Randy
A lot is being made about why coach Randy Edsall didn't tell his players about his departure from UConn, following the team's 48-20 loss to Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl on New Year's day. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If we are to believe the timetable, Edsall had not told his bosses yet about his new job, so how could he inform his players he was heading to Maryland? It was not until 2AM Sunday that Edsall told school officials he would not be returning on the team's charter to Connecticut that day. Under the best of circumstances, a departure for a new job in any field can be a sticky proposition. When it comes to the high profile world of Division I-A college coaches, the landscape can become even messier. Besides, if anyone believed UConn was Edsall's last job, they didn't understand the culture of big time college football.
Most coaches get only one shot at cashing in on that big pay day. You can make the case Edsall had done all he could to elevate the program at Connecticut. In 12 years, he brought UConn up from Division I-AA to Division I-A much faster than most people anticipated. He won a share of two Big East titles, beat Notre Dame, went to five bowl games, including the BCS Fiesta Bowl and won three of those games. Plus, he guided the program through the killing of player Jaspar Howard, an incident which no coaching manual covers.
It became obvious, when Edsall's name emerged as a leading contender to coach Miami, that he was looking for greener pastures. If it wasn't Miami, it was going to be some other school. (I had speculated on Saturday, to friends that Pittsburgh might have made a pitch for him.)
Had Edsall, 52, stayed at Connecticut next season and the team struggled, his coaching luster would have dimmed and the offers might not have come his way. That is why Edsall is the coach at Maryland today and UConn is now seeking to fill a job vacancy. Edsall's departure, as painful as it might come to some, reminds us all that big time college football is big time business for the universities, which choose to join the dance, no matter how dicey a coach chooses to deliver his good byes.
If we are to believe the timetable, Edsall had not told his bosses yet about his new job, so how could he inform his players he was heading to Maryland? It was not until 2AM Sunday that Edsall told school officials he would not be returning on the team's charter to Connecticut that day. Under the best of circumstances, a departure for a new job in any field can be a sticky proposition. When it comes to the high profile world of Division I-A college coaches, the landscape can become even messier. Besides, if anyone believed UConn was Edsall's last job, they didn't understand the culture of big time college football.
Most coaches get only one shot at cashing in on that big pay day. You can make the case Edsall had done all he could to elevate the program at Connecticut. In 12 years, he brought UConn up from Division I-AA to Division I-A much faster than most people anticipated. He won a share of two Big East titles, beat Notre Dame, went to five bowl games, including the BCS Fiesta Bowl and won three of those games. Plus, he guided the program through the killing of player Jaspar Howard, an incident which no coaching manual covers.
It became obvious, when Edsall's name emerged as a leading contender to coach Miami, that he was looking for greener pastures. If it wasn't Miami, it was going to be some other school. (I had speculated on Saturday, to friends that Pittsburgh might have made a pitch for him.)
Had Edsall, 52, stayed at Connecticut next season and the team struggled, his coaching luster would have dimmed and the offers might not have come his way. That is why Edsall is the coach at Maryland today and UConn is now seeking to fill a job vacancy. Edsall's departure, as painful as it might come to some, reminds us all that big time college football is big time business for the universities, which choose to join the dance, no matter how dicey a coach chooses to deliver his good byes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
