Friday, October 24, 2014

Vote NO on Election Day

It sounds simple enough.

On Nov. 4, voters will be asked to consider an amendment to the Connecticut Constitution.

Question 1 asks: "Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to remove restrictions concerning absentee ballots and to permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on the day of an election?"

Many voters might say, “That sounds like a reasonable idea.”

But before you vote “Yes”, ask yourselves what the constitutional change will bring.

Will it mean online voting?  Telephone voting? Month-long voting?  Maybe all of the above?

Your guess is as good as mine.  No one knows what the end game will be. That’s why this question is not being straight with the voters. The truth is, you are being asked to change the state constitution for some unknown future changes to election law.

Changing the Connecticut Constitution is no small matter.  We are, after all, The Constitution State. It's wrong and potentially dangerous to do away with constitutional restrictions and simply leave it up to a General Assembly controlled by one party to decide how voting should happen.  This constitutional change would enable Democrats to make dramatic changes to our electoral system because they have a majority in the legislature.

No matter what your political affiliation, most of us can agree that access to the ballot should readily and easily available. If the goal of Democrats is early voting or no-excuse absentee balloting, they should have put those proposals in a specific constitutional amendment and let voters decide. The language of the question should be clear as a bell, but it isn’t.  Voters should know what the consequences of their “Yes” vote will be, but they have no idea.
 
Language is important. At least our predecessors thought so.  They felt it necessary to put election law in our state constitution.
 
A “Yes” vote on Nov. 4 will open the door to the unknown.  It opens the door to a lot of things without letting the public know where are going.  A “Yes” vote, in my opinion, represents a carte blanche for your state legislature to change voting laws going forward.
So, voters, do you trust them to make all the right moves at the State Capitol?  If not, please join me in voting “No” on Nov. 4.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

New Fairfield's Hero on September 11, 2001

I had the honor of participating in New Fairfield's September 11th community remembrance service. Here is the text of my comments:

New Fairfield and neighboring Danbury paid a big price on September 11th 2001. Firefighter Chris Blackwell, Rob Higley, Candace Lee Williams and Michael Jacobs perished at the hands of terrorists. Dozens of other victims have family connections to our area on both sides of the state border.

Two-thousand-nine-hundred-seventy-seven victims.
All with a story – all with painful tears.

A tragedy of epic proportions.

Tonight we remember. Tonight we give thanks for their service and their love.

One story has deep roots in New Fairfield…

His mother said, "he was interested in anything that was dangerous. He was born with no sense of fear. When he was little he would swim underwater before he would swim on top of it. My other three children were a lot easier."

His brother shared a story about a distempered raccoon roaming the neighborhood that got too close to children playing nearby. He lead the kids to safety and then put the raccoon down.

That's the kind of guy he was. His first thought was always about others. So, it was no surprise to anyone when he became a career firefighter.

Chris Blackwell was a highly-decorated 20-year member of FDNY Rescue 3 – “Big Blue” as it is known in New York. Mr. Blackwell received the Heroism and Community Service medal in 1989, the Thomas Kennedy medal in 1990, and the Medal of Valor in 1992. He was a member of the FEMA urban search and rescue team and taught heavy rescue skills to fire departments throughout the region and the country.

Chris grew up in New Fairfield and graduated from Immaculate High School. He was a veteran, having served with the U.S. Air Force, was a 25-year member of New Fairfield Volunteer Fire Department - Company A and he worked as a regional paramedic during his career.

Chris was the husband of Jane Scott Blackwell, and beloved father of Alex (Alexandra), Ryan and Samantha.

His wife, dear children, proud parents, Fran and Don, siblings, in-laws and the New Fairfield community lost a hero on September 11th 2001.

Maybe not. It seems Chris’ legacy is alive and well. His children have followed him into public service.

Chris’ daughter Alex is in law enforcement. Son Ryan is now a firefighter in the FDNY – carrying the same badge as his father - #342. Daughter Samantha is studying for a career in health care.

Jane Blackwell rose to the challenge of being a single parent – she says with tremendous help from family and friends. I imagine her faith and her guardian angel wearing badge #342 in Heaven helped along the way.

So you see – Chris Blackwell is still with us through his loving family and friends. Chris’ legacy is alive and well and we are very grateful for his service.

May God Bless America and all of the families affected by the tragedy of September 11th. Thank you.


New Fairfield High School Madrigals performing at the September 11 ceremony.

 

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Obama Says New Highway Tolls Are Okay - NOT!

The Obama administration moved to open the door for states to collect tolls on interstate highways to raise revenue for roadway repairs - essentially abdicating the federal government's responsibility to fund the interstate highway system.

This is very bad news for western Connecticut’s economy and environment if steps are taken to bring tolls to Connecticut’s border towns.

The proposal, contained in a White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

Any move to revive the idea of interstate tolls for placement in border areas like greater Danbury should be stalled immediately. Tolls on Connecticut’s western border would drive motorists to take local roads to avoid them, creating traffic bottlenecks in those neighborhoods and additional air pollution.  Border toll proponents say most of the toll revenue will come from non-Connecticut residents, but what about the person from greater Danbury who drives to work in New York, every morning?

In recent years, the State of Connecticut has raided over $187 million of taxpayer money that was supposed to be directed to transportation projects such as upkeep of roads and bridges.  Instead, that money was used to balance the state budget.

Tolls are taxes. We are overtaxed already. We need to get our spending under control.  We need to get honest in how Connecticut taxpayers’ money is being handled.

I have fought back past attempts to bring border tolls to Connecticut and I will continue strong opposition based on this week’s news from the White House.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Democrats Change Campaign Finance Rules Then Sue the Regulators

I am amazed at the brazen attitude of Governor Malloy and his minions in the Democratic Party when it comes to taxpayer-funded political campaigns. They claim Republicans are improperly spending money outside of Connecticut’s “Clean Elections” system but the Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to open the campaign cash floodgates with Republican opposition.

The Democratic Governor’s Association (DGA) filed a lawsuit in federal court this week suing the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission (CT-SEEC) claiming they are interfering with First Amendment rights. Ironically, the DGA is suing Connecticut (to benefit incumbent Governor Malloy) over legislation passed by the Democrat majority during the 2013 General Assembly session.

Hypocrisy has unusual bedfellows when it comes to campaign finance law. Even some Democrat activists are chiming in on Governor Malloy’s campaign strategy. Somehow Common Cause managed to twist the story of the Democratic Governor’s Association’s lawsuit against the CT-SEEC will benefit Republican Tom Foley in the race for governor.

Governor Malloy served as the finance chair of the DGA and raised $20 million for their campaign coffers. Malloy’s senior adviser Roy Occhiogrosso was paid $258,000 by the DGA for research and polling services – one would assume to benefit Governor Malloy’s campaign.

Tough topic to follow but here goes – Malloy raises money for the DGA, the DGA pays Malloy’s senior advisor for polling and research. Now the DGA wants to claim these are “independent expenditures.”

Independent of whom?

So in Connecticut we have taxpayer-funded political campaigns for voluntary participants (this author has received “grants” of roughly $85,000 in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles). The candidates for governor will receive grants of $7 million each.

The Democrats didn’t think their “clean elections program” was fair so they changed the rules to let all kinds of new money enter the “clean” campaign. Now they don’t like the rules they made so in comes the DGA from Washington.

Sound confusing? Exactly! If you listen to the Democrats this is all about fairness to overcome the millionaire Republicans. Poppycock.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

CL&P Shut-Off Notices for Paying On-Time!

Numerous customers of Connecticut Light & Power Company are experiencing alarming shut-off notices and late charges for their on-time payments! Why? Because CL&P changed their accounts receivable operations to Dallas, Texas and the former two-day payment processing service in Hartford now means two weeks in Dallas.

Why would a major corporation want their payments floating in the U.S. Postal Service travelling from Connecticut to Texas? I’m sure somebody at the company has a “good” answer but it completely defies logic.

Many of my constituents have contacted me to share their frustration with CL&P’s customer service department in response to a CL&P shut-off notice. One person told me, I’ve never been late paying my bills and now they send me a shut-off notice and charge me a late fee?”

Another constituent received a shut-off notice and the power was turned off. Unfortunately, their payment was received on-time by CL&P and the power was restored. After a contentious phone call to customer service CL&P removed the “reconnection fee” from the customer’s bill.

Phone calls to CL&P often result in a response saying “don’t worry, we received your payment.” Tell that to a senior citizen who’s never experienced the alarm of a shut-off notice!

CL&P should promptly pull the plug on their new out-of-state payment operations and refund the inappropriate late fees to their customers who paid on-time.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Government Spending Exceeding Constitutional Cap

It seems like yesterday, but two decades have passed since then-Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker signed a state income tax into law.

And while many of us can vividly recall the huge taxpayer rallies which were held at the State Capitol during that time, we may have forgotten that the hated tax hike was tied to a measure which restricted state government spending increases to inflation and personal income increases.

They called it the “Spending Cap” – a cap on the amount of your money our state officials could spend.  It aimed to reassure a nervous public that the tax on our personal income would not become the politicians’ license to spend.

Fast forward to today.

The income tax has not proven to be the cure-all for Connecticut’s budget problems.  In fact, it has proven to be the predecessor to a variety of other tax hikes, including the recent record-setting tax hikes on sales, estates, corporate profits and, yes, the income tax.

Meanwhile, the spending of your money has not been brought under control. Your state government continues to have a penchant for spending whatever revenue becomes available.

This year, there is a move by Democrats in Hartford to change the definition of the “Spending Cap”.  By altering the definition, the majority party would be able to enact future spending increases.  In other words, the “Spending Cap” - one of our only checks on runaway government spending - would be forever altered.

I have a big problem with that idea of handing our elected officials more blank checks to spend even more of your money, and I hope you see why.

Think of a family on a budget.  Let’s say a family has been spending more money than the household is taking in as income.  To get back on track, you agree to abide by a spending allowance of a certain amount each week.  Sure, there are temptations to spend on unnecessary items, but common sense usually prevails and the disciplined approach proves to be the best long term solution.

In the State of Connecticut’s case, changing the definition of the spending cap to suit elected officials’ spending habits would be a terrible mistake.  Our state is broke, yet we continue to borrow, tax and spend your money as if there will be no consequences to the spree.

There of course will be consequences.  They will arrive in the form of higher debt and even more taxes on our children and grandchildren.

The bill to unscrew the spending cap is House Bill 6352. I hope you will join me in opposing the move to give our legislature a license to spend.

CT Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Creates More Problems

Tonight the Connecticut Senate voted to approve allowing undocumented immigrants the opportunity to receive an official state driver’s license. Following nearly six hours of debate with minority Republicans expressing numerous concerns of identification security, the measure passed 19-16 with only two Democrats opposing the measure.

Four states currently offer licenses for undocumented immigrants – Illinois, New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Two of these states have unsuccessfully attempted to repeal their law. According to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Research, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has pushed to repeal the law, arguing that it leads to fraud, human trafficking, organized crime, and significant security concerns.

Seven states previously offered licenses for undocumented immigrants but repealed their laws – Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee and California. Two of these states are reconsidering their repeal.

Why have nine states – 82% of the states currently or previously offering licenses for undocumented immigrants – repealing their laws? Sounds like problems to me!

I opposed the bill in Connecticut because the proposal clearly had many weaknesses the majority Democrats refused to address.

One of the major flaws in the bill is requiring a background check that only looks at Connecticut criminal history. Background checks required for the purchase of guns in our state requires a national criminal check yet this proposal only checks in-state criminal records. Why?

Undocumented immigrants have a high likelihood of transiency – meaning they often cross state borders. Why are the Democrats ignoring this fact? Why are law-abiding gun owners who are U.S. citizens held to a thorough national background check while undocumented immigrants in Connecticut need only have a clean record in one state to pass muster and be issued an official government identification document?

Connecticut legislators are not empowered to enact federal immigration laws. Our national illegal immigration problem must be fixed in Washington. Issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants is poor public policy and should not be enacted in Connecticut until our federal government fixes our broken immigration system.