Today we celebrate Constitution Day in the United States of America. On September 17, 1787 our Founding Fathers declared “We the People” and signed the document establishing the freedoms we enjoy. On this 223rd anniversary some Americans feel the Constitution is ignored by many elected officials, judges and educators.
Federal law states, “Each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.” {36 U.S.C. § 106}
I assume this is happening in Connecticut but is that really enough? Why isn’t the Constitution a core curriculum every year for students?
I remember a lesson in Danbury schools talking about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. We were taught Jefferson was the “father” of separation of church and state. In fact, the history is far more complicated and even includes a misguided decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1947.
One of the best articles I’ve read on this topic is from David Barton:
The Separation of Church and State
In Barton’s closing comment he states, “In summary, the ‘separation’ phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. 'Separation of church and state' currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant."
When I read the Constitution of the United States today I see many areas our government appears to conflict with the Founding Fathers. This is a fascinating topic for me so I will keep studying.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A Young Life Cut Short on September 11, 2001
I had the pleasure to participate in a September 11th Remembrance Ceremony this morning at the site of Danbury's September 11th Memorial in Elmwood Park. The following is the text of my remarks:
"Thank you for joining us this morning to remember September 11, 2001.
On the first anniversary of September 11th, I was working on plans for a community celebration on behalf of the Mayor. We settled on a march down Main Street from the War Memorial to the CityCenter Green followed by a remembrance ceremony. A tropical storm blew through Danbury a few hours before the ceremony that afternoon and dropped trees and power lines across Main Street. An army of CL&P crews and city Forestry Department crews cleared the path for the celebration just in time for the start at 6:00 PM. The CityCenter Green was a sea of people.
The glass sculpture before us is the work of renowned artist Henry Richardson. The sculpture is a tower within a tower signifying the Twin Towers. The interior empty space is the same proportional dimensions as the physical presence of both towers. The inner tower here has the names of all Connecticut residents lost in the Twin Towers and highlighted in larger letters at eye-level are our Danbury-area residents. This twelve foot tower of glass is mounted on a pentagon of Connecticut granite.
The Danbury September 11th Memorial project was completed in less than a year and we hosted a spectacular dedication ceremony on September 11, 2004.
This is a special place in Danbury thanks to a group of people lead by Father Albert Audette who worked hard to make this memorial a reality. Vycki Higley Pratt, Kristy Gray, Firefighter Thomas Corbett, Sgt. John Krupinsky, Joel Levitt, Jan Nastasia, Jessica Soriano and I worked well together during the planning. This past year we lost another dedicated member of the committee – Sherry Williams – who passed on to join her daughter Candace Lee Williams – a passenger on Flight 11.
Candace Lee Williams was a student. A graduate of Immaculate High School’s Class of 1999, she was attending Northeastern University in Boston. She made the Dean’s List and was a member of the National Honor’s Society.
Candace was a Daughter, Sister, Granddaughter and Niece.
Candace was active. In high school she was a cheerleader, served on the student council, volunteered for the Special Olympics, played basketball and ran cross country.
Candace worked in the World Trade Center though she was on Flight 11 when she died. The plane she was in crashed into the building where she worked as an intern. She impressed her co-workers at Merrill Lynch so much that on her last day they sent her away in a limousine. The next semester Merrill Lynch asked Northeastern University for “five more Candaces.”
Candace was a dreamer. On 9/11 she was on the way to California, to meet her roommate for a short vacation. On that trip she wanted, more than anything else, to have her picture taken with the Hollywood sign
Maybe more than anything Candace was a helper. As a child she helped out at her grandparent’s construction company and not just in the office. She ran the machines, she poured concrete and she even put in septic systems.
At Northeastern University she developed a reputation as someone who would help others. Classmates appeared on her doorstep before exams, knowing she’d help - she even helped convince one friend not to drop out of school.
Airline records say that on Flight 11, Candace was seated next to Mildred Naiman, an 80-year-old grandmother. Candace’s mother said she’s sure her daughter died holding Mildred’s hand, comforting her.
You are looking at one of the most spectacular September 11th Memorials in the country. Candace Lee Williams and all the victims of September 11, 2001 deserve spectacular."
Visit Danbury's September 11th Memorial in Elmwood Park on Main Street.
Candace Lee William’s story is from “Project 2,996”
Friday, July 30, 2010
Democrats Continue Their Bad Habits of Increased Spending
Connecticut has a public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaign finance system. What does that mean? Political campaigns for the state legislature and the Governor raise a portion of their campaign budget from individual contributors and get the rest of their funding from the “Citizen’s Election Program.”
The current program was ruled unconstitutional by two federal judges over the past year. The Connecticut General Assembly is in special session today to “fix” the program so that it complies with the court order and preserves the program.
Somehow the Democrats in Hartford think we should increase spending by awarding more “grants” to candidates for governor. This means Connecticut state government spends (paid for by taxpayers) another $6 million for political television advertising, bumper stickers and junk mail at a time when the food pantry cupboards are running bare.
When the federal courts ruled the Connecticut public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaign finance system unconstitutional they did not say we had to spend more money. No, that decision was made by the Democrats in Hartford.
It is no secret I am not a fan of public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaigns. I have voted on several occasions to remove funding for the program. I reluctantly participated in the voluntary program as the rules prove onerous for a traditional campaign funded by private contributors.
During my first campaign for the state senate in 2008 I was the first candidate to qualify for the Citizen Election Program (CEP). This required me to recruit over 300 contributors from within my district with a minimum $5 donation and raise at least $15,000. CEP then provided $85,000 to my campaign if I agreed to a spending limit of $100,000.
Candidates for governor may qualify for a grant of $3 million if they achieve similar success on a statewide basis. Today the Democrats in Hartford argued $3 million from the public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaign fund was insufficient and we should DOUBLE the spending to $6 million per candidate!
Connecticut residents are frustrated with state government’s disconnect from the realities of a recession. Somehow the Hartford Democrats keep spending more money and suggest this is necessary for one reason or another. Connecticut residents have a clear message for the State Capitol – CUT SPENDING!
There is no reason to increase spending for political campaigns. If there is $6 million “sitting there” then we should begin paying off the $2 billion we borrowed to pay regular expenses in the last year because the Hartford Democrats would not CUT SPENDING!
The current program was ruled unconstitutional by two federal judges over the past year. The Connecticut General Assembly is in special session today to “fix” the program so that it complies with the court order and preserves the program.
Somehow the Democrats in Hartford think we should increase spending by awarding more “grants” to candidates for governor. This means Connecticut state government spends (paid for by taxpayers) another $6 million for political television advertising, bumper stickers and junk mail at a time when the food pantry cupboards are running bare.
When the federal courts ruled the Connecticut public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaign finance system unconstitutional they did not say we had to spend more money. No, that decision was made by the Democrats in Hartford.
It is no secret I am not a fan of public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaigns. I have voted on several occasions to remove funding for the program. I reluctantly participated in the voluntary program as the rules prove onerous for a traditional campaign funded by private contributors.
During my first campaign for the state senate in 2008 I was the first candidate to qualify for the Citizen Election Program (CEP). This required me to recruit over 300 contributors from within my district with a minimum $5 donation and raise at least $15,000. CEP then provided $85,000 to my campaign if I agreed to a spending limit of $100,000.
Candidates for governor may qualify for a grant of $3 million if they achieve similar success on a statewide basis. Today the Democrats in Hartford argued $3 million from the public-financed, taxpayer-funded campaign fund was insufficient and we should DOUBLE the spending to $6 million per candidate!
Connecticut residents are frustrated with state government’s disconnect from the realities of a recession. Somehow the Hartford Democrats keep spending more money and suggest this is necessary for one reason or another. Connecticut residents have a clear message for the State Capitol – CUT SPENDING!
There is no reason to increase spending for political campaigns. If there is $6 million “sitting there” then we should begin paying off the $2 billion we borrowed to pay regular expenses in the last year because the Hartford Democrats would not CUT SPENDING!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
____________________________
Learn more about the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
____________________________
Learn more about the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Energy Bill Deserved Governor's Veto
Senate Bill 493 offers some good ideas for promoting renewable energy in Connecticut. Unfortunately, this bill was passed without a public hearing, was written by a small number of Democratic legislators in the closing HOURS of the legislative session, was released to legislators for review only a few hours before a vote and was introduced to the Senate by the Energy & Technology Committee co-chair with an 8-minute presentation.
Although they were not allowed to take part in development of the bill, the state Department of Public Utility & Control and the Office of Policy & Management both reviewed a draft of the proposal only hours before debate and concluded that it would be very costly to electricity customers. They stated, “our overall concern is that most of the provisions of this bill will result in significant increases in ratepayers’ costs and will have a considerable state budgetary impact that are not accounted for in the adopted budget or any proposal under consideration.”
At a time when Connecticut state government is unable to sustain current levels of spending and is researching opportunities for government reorganization, efficiency and down-sizing (I serve on the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes studying these matters) we can't seriously entertain EXPANDING the size of state government as is proposed in SB493. In Governor Rell’s veto message she states, “the cost to ratepayers over the life of this new solar program is nearly $1.4 billion. So, while this is a laudable goal, it is not the time to make this type of investment.”
I supported a Republican amendment to the bill that retains some of the renewable energy proposals in SB493 without expanding state government and dramatically increasing state spending. The proposal, which failed along party lines, included many of the same provisions in the Democrat plan but removed many of the more costly items. This amendment also eliminated proposals that did not have a public hearing.
I am anxious to support responsible legislation that addresses high electricity costs in Connecticut and encourages renewable energy initiatives. Senate Bill 493 is clearly an irresponsible, unaffordable proposal at a time when Connecticut's state government is facing the biggest budget crisis in our history. This is the reason I opposed the bill and why I will vote to sustain the Governor's veto.
Although they were not allowed to take part in development of the bill, the state Department of Public Utility & Control and the Office of Policy & Management both reviewed a draft of the proposal only hours before debate and concluded that it would be very costly to electricity customers. They stated, “our overall concern is that most of the provisions of this bill will result in significant increases in ratepayers’ costs and will have a considerable state budgetary impact that are not accounted for in the adopted budget or any proposal under consideration.”
At a time when Connecticut state government is unable to sustain current levels of spending and is researching opportunities for government reorganization, efficiency and down-sizing (I serve on the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes studying these matters) we can't seriously entertain EXPANDING the size of state government as is proposed in SB493. In Governor Rell’s veto message she states, “the cost to ratepayers over the life of this new solar program is nearly $1.4 billion. So, while this is a laudable goal, it is not the time to make this type of investment.”
I supported a Republican amendment to the bill that retains some of the renewable energy proposals in SB493 without expanding state government and dramatically increasing state spending. The proposal, which failed along party lines, included many of the same provisions in the Democrat plan but removed many of the more costly items. This amendment also eliminated proposals that did not have a public hearing.
I am anxious to support responsible legislation that addresses high electricity costs in Connecticut and encourages renewable energy initiatives. Senate Bill 493 is clearly an irresponsible, unaffordable proposal at a time when Connecticut's state government is facing the biggest budget crisis in our history. This is the reason I opposed the bill and why I will vote to sustain the Governor's veto.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
"Kick the Can" Olympics at CT Capitol
If your income goes down will you cut spending in your household budget? Will you find more ways to stretch your dollars? Of course you will!
State government works differently than you do. Revenue to state government (taxes collected) has crashed during this recession. The answer from majority Democratic leaders at the State Capitol – borrow billions of dollars and keep spending!
Last September the Democrats borrowed $950 million for operating costs without substantive spending cuts. Budget experts and economists warned us the recession would impact the state budget far longer than the private sectors of our economy. That warning should have motivated the Democratic leadership to entertain serious government reform to cut spending in future budget years. Unfortunately, we’re likely to see a proposal to borrow another billion dollars to pay for current year expenses!
Surely businesses and families have responded to the recession in their budgets but state government keeps driving full speed ahead to the budget cliff in 2012.
Our state budget for 2012-2013 is projected to have a $4 billion deficit. If we know the amount of future deficits why not fix the deficit problem? “Kick the Can” Olympics is the reason. The majority Democratic leadership is kicking the can down the road for a future governor and legislature to address the long-term budget crisis in Connecticut.
“Kick the Can” Olympics – a political game that lets the majority Democratic leadership claim they’ve “balanced the budget” in time for their re-election campaigns. Everyone who watches government operations in Connecticut knows 2012 is a nightmare for the next governor and legislature.
What a shame we can’t convince the majority Democratic leadership to make the tough decisions today that will lessen the budget catastrophe coming in 2012.
State government works differently than you do. Revenue to state government (taxes collected) has crashed during this recession. The answer from majority Democratic leaders at the State Capitol – borrow billions of dollars and keep spending!
Last September the Democrats borrowed $950 million for operating costs without substantive spending cuts. Budget experts and economists warned us the recession would impact the state budget far longer than the private sectors of our economy. That warning should have motivated the Democratic leadership to entertain serious government reform to cut spending in future budget years. Unfortunately, we’re likely to see a proposal to borrow another billion dollars to pay for current year expenses!
Surely businesses and families have responded to the recession in their budgets but state government keeps driving full speed ahead to the budget cliff in 2012.
Our state budget for 2012-2013 is projected to have a $4 billion deficit. If we know the amount of future deficits why not fix the deficit problem? “Kick the Can” Olympics is the reason. The majority Democratic leadership is kicking the can down the road for a future governor and legislature to address the long-term budget crisis in Connecticut.
“Kick the Can” Olympics – a political game that lets the majority Democratic leadership claim they’ve “balanced the budget” in time for their re-election campaigns. Everyone who watches government operations in Connecticut knows 2012 is a nightmare for the next governor and legislature.
What a shame we can’t convince the majority Democratic leadership to make the tough decisions today that will lessen the budget catastrophe coming in 2012.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Connecticut Should Reject ObamaCare
An Open Letter to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
Signed by all Republican State Senators
Dear Attorney General Blumenthal:
As the elected official charged with representing the interest of the people of Connecticut, it is now time for you to take action to preserve the Constitution and protect our state’s citizens and businesses. The illegal mandates passed by Congress in the form of the so-called Health Care Reform law must be challenged.
Under our Constitution, those rights not explicitly provided to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to usurp the issue of making health care decisions for either the state or its citizens. The selection of healthcare providers and medical treatments, as well as the decision NOT to have certain treatments or coverage is the decision of the individual, protected by the Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the purview of Congress to supersede those individual rights.
In addition, it has long been settled that the federal government has ceded to the states the responsibility of setting local healthcare standards of care, as well as regulatory authority over the medical and insurance industries. This inherent recognition of states' rights as pertaining to health care should remain, absent some Constitutional amendment granting oversight to Congress.
Finally, the attempted use of the Commerce Clause to justify this latest power grab by the federal government is unwarranted and improper. If the Commerce Clause, which springs from the authority to oversee economic activity between the states, was truly a proper source for an entire radical redesign of the health insurance industry, then it would not have been illegal to sell health insurance policies across state lines. In a free society, it has never been the duty of Congress to force the people of the United States to purchase a certain commercial product simply as a consequence of being alive. It is inherently illegal to mandate that free citizens must buy health care coverage or face sanctions.
We urge you to join the growing number of attorney generals who have already begun legal proceedings to stop this illegal action by Congress. Regardless of your personal beliefs or philosophies, you are bound by duty to protect and defend the people of this state, the small employers who will be penalized or put out of business by the mandates, the large insurance companies that call our state home and employ tens of thousands of our residents in an industry that will eventually be eliminated by government intrusion into our free markets, and the private citizens who will ultimately have to pay the $ 1.3 trillion price tag.
We would be happy to discuss this issue with you further at your convenience and we will assist your office in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Senator John McKinney, Senate Minority Leader
Senator Len Fasano, Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore
Senator Andrew Roraback
Senator Tony Guglielmo
Senator John Kissel
Senator Sam Caligiuri
Senator Dan Debicella
Senator Rob Kane
Senator Toni Boucher
Senator Kevin Witkos
Senator Scott Frantz
Senator Michael McLachlan
Signed by all Republican State Senators
Dear Attorney General Blumenthal:
As the elected official charged with representing the interest of the people of Connecticut, it is now time for you to take action to preserve the Constitution and protect our state’s citizens and businesses. The illegal mandates passed by Congress in the form of the so-called Health Care Reform law must be challenged.
Under our Constitution, those rights not explicitly provided to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to usurp the issue of making health care decisions for either the state or its citizens. The selection of healthcare providers and medical treatments, as well as the decision NOT to have certain treatments or coverage is the decision of the individual, protected by the Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the purview of Congress to supersede those individual rights.
In addition, it has long been settled that the federal government has ceded to the states the responsibility of setting local healthcare standards of care, as well as regulatory authority over the medical and insurance industries. This inherent recognition of states' rights as pertaining to health care should remain, absent some Constitutional amendment granting oversight to Congress.
Finally, the attempted use of the Commerce Clause to justify this latest power grab by the federal government is unwarranted and improper. If the Commerce Clause, which springs from the authority to oversee economic activity between the states, was truly a proper source for an entire radical redesign of the health insurance industry, then it would not have been illegal to sell health insurance policies across state lines. In a free society, it has never been the duty of Congress to force the people of the United States to purchase a certain commercial product simply as a consequence of being alive. It is inherently illegal to mandate that free citizens must buy health care coverage or face sanctions.
We urge you to join the growing number of attorney generals who have already begun legal proceedings to stop this illegal action by Congress. Regardless of your personal beliefs or philosophies, you are bound by duty to protect and defend the people of this state, the small employers who will be penalized or put out of business by the mandates, the large insurance companies that call our state home and employ tens of thousands of our residents in an industry that will eventually be eliminated by government intrusion into our free markets, and the private citizens who will ultimately have to pay the $ 1.3 trillion price tag.
We would be happy to discuss this issue with you further at your convenience and we will assist your office in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Senator John McKinney, Senate Minority Leader
Senator Len Fasano, Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore
Senator Andrew Roraback
Senator Tony Guglielmo
Senator John Kissel
Senator Sam Caligiuri
Senator Dan Debicella
Senator Rob Kane
Senator Toni Boucher
Senator Kevin Witkos
Senator Scott Frantz
Senator Michael McLachlan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
