In a Hartford Courant article on the topic February 17, 2008 it was revealed that Governor Rell’s countenance appears on 21 billboards throughout Connecticut promoting her ridiculous “One Thing You Can Do” campaign. (More on the “One Thing You Can Do” campaign tomorrow).  The blushing office of the Governor now claims they are doing an about face to end the billboard campaign immediately.  Unfortunately, the state is on the hook for the billboard ads whether used or not. Additionally, the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism has instituted a new grant program where the state pays 60 percent of the cost of a billboard ad for nonprofit museums and other attractions, and 50 percent for profit-making organizations. The billboards will be up from April through July, along I-84, I-95 and I-91 in Connecticut and I-87, I-95 and I-84 in New York. To recap, Governor Rell is proposing a ban on billboard in the middle of two state funded billboard campaigns.  “One Thing” Governor Rell can do is save time, and gas by staying at the Governor’s residence rather than commuting everyday to Brookfield. With the time saved the Governor can pay closer attention to what’s going on in her office and throughout the state.  With the gas savings she can make a dent into the thousands of dollars the state will lose on her latest debacle. 

The Wrong Medicine?

 

In  The Wrong Medicine, Hartford Courant editors oppose  Governor Rell’s proposal for  a state mandate 4% cap on local property tax increases. The cap proposal itself has increased ½ percent since the Governor first proposed the mandate in 2007 as a 3 ½ percent limit.  The Courant pointed out that after passage of Proposition 2 ½  in Massachusetts, several communities closed schools, libraries, and firehouses.

One would think that with such draconian tax measures the Courant would list specific cites or towns where these closures happened, and the devastation caused rather than a blanket statement devoid of facts.  As a former resident of the Bay State, I remember when Prop 2 ½ passed way back in 1980, and was implemented in fiscal 1982.  After nearly 16 years, how has our neighbor to the north still managed to educate children, maintain roads, put out fires, and arrest felons with only a paltry 2 ½ property tax increase each year? The answer is that a fixed property tax increase each year requires towns and cities to work within a budget, just like the typical taxpayer.  Personally, I would like to spend ten percent more this year than last, however if my annual salary goes up only two percent than I cannot.   What if I take that dream vacation I always wanted but can’t afford and balance my budget by holding back on my tax payments, I’m sure I’ll get a visit from a sheriff with a tax lien. If taxpayers are forced to operate within a budget, why can’t Connecticut’s cities and towns?  Because doing so requires asking hard questions about what is an essential service, and what can be cut. Not every town service is essential.  Unless or until our cities and towns are forced to live within budget restraints Connecticut will continue to experience job losses and population decline. Governor Rell is right, and the Courant is wrong.  If we don’t take positive steps to reel in property taxes they’ll be no one left in Connecticut. The time is now to implement budget constraints before there’s no one left to tax, remember, whoever is the last to leave the Nutmeg state please turn out the light because it’s “One thing you can do.”  

December 5, 2006

If the Hartford Courant was doing its job, thats the headline we should have seen for the following story.  

As reported in the Hartford Courant, the State Department of Education released a proposal requiring stricter standards for high school graduation beginning in 2010-2011. 

Why?   Only 25% of students entering Hartford’s three public high schools graduate.

What purpose would it serve to lower that number?

As a former private school teacher, I knew very early in the school year if a student was not going to pass my course.  I would then work with the student to help he/she toward academic success. Requiring comprehensive exams will simply prevent more students from achieving a high school diploma.  If the exams will prevent more students from graduating what is the real purpose? 

Buried deep in the story about new standards is the following paragraph:

“The new requirements would also include two years of world languages — none are presently required — and three years of lab sciences, changes that would mean hiring more teachers and building more labs in many schools.” 

What a surprise, change the standards so more teachers need to be hired  and money added to already bloated school budgets. School funding in Connecticut has risen dramatically in the last twenty years, yet CMT test scores continue to go down.  Taxpayers continue to spend more money for poorer results. The solution offered by the State Department of Education is to blow more money on the broken socialistic public education system.   

Why not look at the problem instead of putting another coat of lipstick on the pig? If improving education for the children is the real purpose, why not allow school vouchers?

Private schools provide a better education for substantially less money than public schools. Unfortunately, it’s not about the education of children but jobs for adults.  Our public education system is all about adding jobs and union paying members to the NEA.  Until competitive forces are allowed to do their magic on Connecticut’s education establishment we are doomed to pay more for less, and our children will suffer.

Hartford Courant Columnist Kevin Rennie reported in the Courant on December 2, 2007 http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-commentaryrennie1202.artdec02,0,3650719.story
that Democratic State Senator Thomas Gaffey, chairman of the legislature's education committee, was having a personal relationship with Jill Ferraiolo, a Connecticut State University system associate vice chancellor and legislative liaison at the state capitol. At the time,  the legislature was formulating a $1 billion bonding package for the State University system.  Ferraiolo, who was married, was in charge of recruiting funding for the State University system.  Adultly was cited as the reason for Ferraiolo's husband of 18 years filing for divorce.  Ferraiolo's three young children live mostly with the husband now that the divorce has been finalized. 
The state ethics office says that "the Code does not bear on this situation because "the liaison is not a family member" and the senator didn't receive "any benefit" from the bill's passage.   Gaffey claims he received no benefit as a result of the relationship, that's not saying much about Ferraiolo if he was actively engaged in a relationship with her. Just like Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman........  Most private employers have restrictions about these type of relationships, for instance the new director of the Red Cross was forced to resign because of a similar affair with a  fellow employee. Perhaps Gaffey should probe deeper into what type of personal relationships he engages in to get some......opps, I mean ahead.

In my last posting I called out Connecticut Goveronor Jodi Rell for firing four in-state insurance companies who provide uninsured state residents with the Husky plan.  Why was I surprised the next day when the Hartford Courant editorial staff endorsed this short sighted policy. In one of my favorite movies "Back to School" Rodney Dangerfield portrays Thornton Mellon a millionaire businessman who goes back to college. During one business class, Dangerfield tries to enlighten the business professor about how the real world works. At one point the professor, who has only text book knowledge of how the real business word operates asks the class where they should locate their fictional business. Dangerfield blurts out, "How about fantasyland?". That same sentiment goes out to Governor Rell, and the Courant editorial staff. Shouldn't the Rell adminstration have located other insurance companies who are willing to write the Husky policy under the guidelines of full disclosure before they terminated with the four instate companies. Will the full disclosure cost twice as much in premium dollars, for less coverage? Will that $700 million in premiums  go to out of state insurance companies? What about the reduction in sales, income, and corporate taxes that will take place if Connecticut cannot locate an in-state insurance carrier? I am astonished how naive state officials in the Insurance Capital are of how premiums are calculated. There is never a free lunch when it comes to insurance premiums. Additions always cost more, and you are always at the liberty of who is willing to write the coverage. There is a strong possibility that no insurance companies will step up to write the Husky policy, what will happen then? Wil the state of Connecticut go into the health insurance business? If an insurance company is willing to write the Husky policy we can be assured it will be for a premium increase because the four lowest costs competitors will not bid the policy. Seems like the Rell administration should take business courses in long range planning, and risk management, before playing policy games with the Husky policy

 

Three cheers to Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell.  Thankfully she never studied economics and learned the rules of cause and effect.  In the following  Hartford Courant article 

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-husky1120.artnov20,0,5693652.story the state has basically fired four in-state insurance companies who  received $700 million in premiums, and were probably the four lowest bidders on the Husky health coverage. The reason, the private insurance companies will not adhere to state freedom of information laws.   The state doesn’t have any insurance companies who are willing to take over this coverage for the same amount.  Now these in state insurance companies will have to lay off state residents due to the loss of this big state contract. The unemployed residents will have less money to spend, reducing sales tax revenues, and income tax revenues, and corporate tax revenues on the $70 M in premium revenue will also evaporate. The insurance company employees who currently receive company sponsored health insurance benefits will be out of work and without health insurance benefits.  The aforementioned unemployed insurance workers will then have to go on the Husky plan costing the state more money.  The state will be moving over $700 million in premiums to out of state companies. Less sales tax revenue, less income tax revenue, less corporate tax revenue, and higher rates for the same health insurance. This

brain dead policy is from the Rell administration, hardly the champion of full disclosure and freedom of information. When will the politicians like Rell  get it?  Someone should remind Jodi Rell to turn out the light when everyone has left Connecticut. The politicians  interference with free commerce has a chilling, negative impact on our state's economy. Mark my words, the new insurance providers will charge more, and provide fewer benefits than their predecessors because there will no longer be any competiton for the Husky policy.   The four in-state insurance companies will not longer be willing or able to bid competitively. If it wasn't for bad policies, there would be no policies from the Rell administration.

 

Competition and choice, two cornerstones of the overwhelming success of a young country called the United States.

Competition brings us more choices at better prices.  Sounds like a great concept.  That's why a 19" color television is half of the cost of the same unit that my parents purchased in 1970. That's why the United States enjoys the tremendous standard of living we have today. It is why we are the strongest country in the world.

Consumer goods, automobiles, housing, personal services, and higher education all benefit from a competitive free market economy.

There remains only one market that suffers under the tyranny of an evil monarch, and the lack of competition and choice is most damning to the overall strength of our democracy.  That market is public education, and the monarch is King NEA (National Education Association). Consistently when well intended parents say they want to enjoy the benefits of competition and choice for their children King NEA rears his ugly head and quashes the rebels.

Whether it is school choice programs for inner city parents, or state wide referendums in California and Michigan, King NEA will spend billions to prevent competition or choice in public education.  I witnessed the
10M that King NEA spent to fight a state wide referendum on school choice in California.  As a private school parent the television smear campaign against school choice was so compelling I began to wonder if I was endangering my own children by sending them to a religious school.

Now King NEA is at it again.  Duly elected officials in UTAH Passed the Parent Choice in Education Act in February of 2007, which would provide vouchers to public school children who transfer to a private school.
The law if enacted would save Utah residents billions of dollars in new school construction costs, without reducing current funds for public schools.  Parents would have a choice of schools for their children, and competition would lead to better schools for Utah students.  A Win, Win, Win situation for the residents of Utah, but not if you are King NEA and your goal is to keep your subjects subservient to you.  King NEA is forcing a referendum, and pumping millions into attempting to convince Utah residents they have it better with a monarchy than a democracy.  Good citizens of Utah, revolt and overthrow King NEA, your children's and the  American dream depend on you! 

 Only in Connecticut will you find two democrats fighting over what to do will money that belongs to the taxpayers.  Fiscal conservative Democratic State Comptroller Nancy Wyman was critical of the legislature for spending too much of $925 million surplus, and not saving enough. Only $134 million of the surplus will be deposited into the rainy day fund and the rest be used to fund existing programs. Wyman said " Using the great majority of this onesided windfall to fund ongoing programs is a very questionable financial practice."
Ms. Wyman is missing the boat,  there is already nearly $1 billion in the rainy day fund.  How about giving the money back to the taxpayers in the form of a refund so we can build up our family's rainy day fund.  Comptroller Wyman is at least more of economist than Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney a democrat from New Haven.  Looney, as his surname suggest can't even find the dock, to miss the boat on taxes.  In a year where the budget surplus is nearly $1 billion, Looney suggested raising taxes so there would be less of a surplus, less need to use the surplus, and more money for the rainy day fund.  Huh?  Is everyone taking crazy pills? Looney stated the democratic plan to raise taxes to reduce the surplus  was defeated when " We ran into opposition from the governor and the Republican Party"  HOW ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS SENATOR LOONEY?  WHAT ABOUT WHAT WE WANT?  MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR YOU AND YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS TO BEGIN REPRESENTING THE TAXPAYERS, OR YOU WILL SOON BE REJOINING THE RANKS OF AVERAGE CITIZENS.

That's the headline of a Hartford Courant editorial from June 30, 2007.  Why does the question need to be asked?  Of course its not sustainable.  The only reason it balanced was the use of nearly a 1 billion surplus that should have been returned to the taxpayers in the budget relief promised by our legislature and Governor Rell. Connecticut taxpayers received no tax relief, and in fact had our taxes raised by the $1 billion surplus that wasn't returned.  Has no one in the Constitution state taken an economics course before? In two years when the present budget expires taxes will need to be raised beyond the surplus to balance the budget, or all the services that we added will need to be cut.  We all know that once a service or employee starts feeding from the government trough, he or it is guaranteed nourishment for a lifetime.  The last government official who dared to cut the budget was the courageous Governor John Rowland, who was subsequently ruined and driven out of office by the Hartford Courant with assistance from the state employees union.  Speaking of ex-governor Rowland, isn't it interesting that both contractors who were star witnesses for the Hartford Courant witch hunt have recently been arrested in bid rigging deals.  Guess the Hartford Courant didn't think that warranted much coverage. Frustrated in CT

I thought bait and switch was against the law?
Isn't is interesting the way you frame an issue to the press is the way they will report it.
For instance the 'Hartford Courant' gleefully reported about the new two year budget with no tax increases.
Am I the only  one who is confused.  As we approach the end of the 2007 fiscal year Connecticut has a 1 billion dollar surplus.  Our economically inept Governor Rell has recognized that this is a financial crisis worthy of emergency status and authorized an override of the constitutional spending cap to utilize the surplus to fund more programs.  Let me explain this in  layman's terms.  If your local painter gave you an estimate to paint your house, and the actual cost was less than the estimate, he/she would be legally obligated to issue a refund.  If that contractor kept the money he would be guilty of larceny, and media hound Attorney General Blumenthal would be busy filing suits, writs, and arrest warrants.  However when the state gives an estimate of the tax revenue it needs to meet its budget,  gets more than it needs and then keeps the excess, that's called a no-tax increase budget.
Taxes actually increased $1 billion dollars for the 2007 fiscal year, that's a sizable  increase no matter how you frame it.

Am I the only Connecticut resident who has a problem with state representatives that  also work for the state or local government.  There's been a big deal made of State Senator Lou Deluca receiveing campaign contributions from a local refuse contractor with alleged underworld ties.
I have a bigger problem with my local represtative David McClusky whose other job is working for the state employees union. Who are you more likely to watch out for, the company that  pays you a six figure salary with benefits, or the voters who provide you with a modest part time job as their elected representative.
Any disussion of reform at the State Capital must begin with represtatives that do not also work for organizations that do business with the state. Just a random thought.