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.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
USE THE STUDENTS. SAVE MONEY!
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
DAN'S TOP 40 DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA
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
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
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Fact Don't Support Malloy
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.
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.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
McMahon Never Said It
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
JARJURA TO SERVE OUT TERM
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.
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.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Governor Owes Us The Truth
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Why Ned Lamont Could Be Our Next Governor
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.
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.
Friday, June 18, 2010
QUESTIONS FOR LINDA
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.
-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.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
FAMILY VALUES?
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
MELTDOWN CONTINUES
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
DOES HE WANT OUT?
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.
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.
Friday, May 7, 2010
DEMS WILL USE RELL FOR COVER
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.
"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.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
RATES WILL RISE
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.
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.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Now Over $3 Per
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.
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
It's What He Doesn't Say, That Counts
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Inclusive Party?
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.
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.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Larson Plays While You Work
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 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."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Whole Story Stinks
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!
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!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Stop The Bullying
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Alpert Can't Catch A Break
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.
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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Government Takes Care of Itself
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."
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."
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
No Blumy Surprise
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
