Be it resolved...

2019 beckons and it's New Year's resolution season.

I've compiled a list of resolutions for our new Democrat governor and Democrat-controlled Connecticut General Assembly to consider. 

1. Resolve to be fiscally responsible.  Earlier this year, I was proud to vote for state budget adjustments that resolved the fiscal year 2019 deficit, fully financed the Special Transportation Fund, and provided funds to fully staff the Connecticut state veterans hospital.  The budget was and is the product of bipartisan negotiations. A true and fair compromise, it provided funding for critical services without tax increases or enacting tolls. That bears repeating: no tax hikes and no tolls.
2. Remember that the state is broke. Proposing new initiatives and programs always sounds nice.  Problem is, there is no money for well-intentioned new programs.  That may sound sad and bleak, but it’s our reality.  Focus on the red ink.
3. Work with and listen to the bipartisan State Auditors.  Time and again, our state auditors and their team of budget watchdogs uncover waste, fraud and abuse in Connecticut government. Shake your head in disbelief type of waste, fraud and abuse.  Millions of millions of taxpayer dollars can be protected now and in the future simply by scouring the auditors’ recommendations and following through on them.
4. Quit maxing out the state taxpayers' credit card already!  This year, the governor borrowed $10 million to study, yes, study, tolls. He was dutifully supported in this effort by Democrats on the State Bond commission. This was just one example of unnecessary spending and borrowing.  Needs should be funded, not wants.
5. Promote business growth and jobs in Connecticut...by listening to business owners and job creators. Passing a balanced, no-tax-increase budget this past year sent a message that Democrats and Republicans can do the hard work of putting the state’s fiscal house in order. It also showed that we can control spending while still providing crucial services. Businesses are watching lawmakers even more closely now for anti-growth proposals.  Give them the confidence they need.  Don’t spook them.

6.    Listen to the minority party.  The Danbury News-Times once opined that “effective government needs a multitude of voices, not one-party control.”  Well said.  As of Jan. 9, it will be one-party control at our State Capitol.  Here’s hoping majority Democrats and the governor will use their power prudently and include Republican voices and ideas in policy-making.  Those Republican voices helped deliver a spending cap, a bonding cap, and a toll-free, tax-hike free budget in 2018.  Not too shabby.

 

The new class of lawmakers and the governor should feel free to post these resolutions on their office bulletin boards. Review them periodically and re-read them in December 2019 to see if any or all of them were broken.

 

On a personal note, I thank the taxpayers of the 24^th State Senate District for giving me the wonderful honor of serving you for the past decade.  Many  lasting friendships were made, and I took great joy when my hardworking senate staff was able to help constituents solve a wide variety of problems big and small.  I wish my successor the very best, and I wish you all a very happy and healthy new year. 

Budget Starts Righting Ship-of-State

I voted to approve a state budget that ends the Governor’s executive order and restores municipal and education funding. The budget now goes to the House for approval.

 

I’m happy to say this bipartisan compromise budget eliminates the drastic cuts imposed by the Governor and does not force municipalities to pay for the state-negotiated teachers retirement fund. This is a budget that fairly funds education, towns, and the social services that are so important to Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens.

 

The budget is the product of incredible compromises from both Democrats and Republicans. No side got everything it wanted.

 

Everyone is unhappy with the end product, which means that everybody had to give up many things they wanted. This budget starts the long-term process of righting Connecticut’s ship of state. It contains policy changes I have sought for since 2008. It means a better future is possible for our state.

 

In addition to restoring municipal and education funding, the budget:

 

• Enacts a spending cap
• Caps bonding at $1.9 billion per year
• Stabilizes the Special Transportation Fund
• Exempts Social Security from the income tax
• Phases out the income tax on pensions
• Funds day and employment services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities
• Funds mental health and addiction services
• Funds Care4Kids
• Protects funding for senior programs

 

I look forward to the next legislative session and the opportunity to continue pursuing important policy changes that will make Connecticut more competitive, more fiscally stable, and business friendly.

　

Connecticut Lost an Opportunity Today…

The Democrats’ approval of State employee union agreements that extend rich benefits for ten years to 2027 is a tragic lost opportunity to change the direction of our state.

Governor Malloy and Democrats tout savings in this deal but fail to recognize new costs that may create more instability for our state budgets and increase future unfunded liabilities. This agreement guarantees significant tax increases, more burdens on cities and towns and deep social service cuts.

THREE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH LABOR DEAL

1) Ties the hands of future lawmakers and governors by:

• Locking the state into an extended contract that prohibits privatization of services
• Eliminating any opportunity to streamline state government. That means the legislature can’t consolidate administrative functions, close prisons or move services to private nonprofits to enhance and preserve care. 
• Even more unsettling, language contained in the agreement arguably could eliminate the legislature’s current ability to make changes to pension and health care benefits in its entirety, thereby stripping us of any legislative control we have now to rein in labor costs in the future. If our financial problems worsen, this deal will not only lock us in to a contract for 10 years, it will also eliminate the legislature’s statutory authority to do anything about it after any contract expires. The result will be devastating and force lawmakers to turn to cutting services or implementing layoffs in tough financial times. 

2) While the administration is quick to tout the savings in this deal, there has been little discussion about the costs contained in the agreement that could create more instability and increase unfunded liabilities this state cannot bear in future years such as:

• A one-time payment to state employees of 2.5% of salary plus $1,000.  For an average employee this will result in a payment of $2,850.
• Guaranteed wage increases and step increases beginning in 2020.
• No end to longevity payments, rather just a delay.
• No capping or elimination of overtime from current state employees’ pensions. 
• Allowing hazardous duty employees to purchase service time to count towards eligibility for retirement, an idea that was rejected in 2015 due to its potential to “dramatically increase” costs and unfunded liabilities.
• New costly provisions that a) extend maternity and paternity leave for months beyond federal law and b) allow state employees to use an unlimited amount of their sick time to care for another which could result in an employee leaving work for months or even years and the state being unable to refill that position.  

3) The deal also continues to perpetuate and in some cases increase inequities in the current benefits system favoring certain state employees.

• For example, the deal allows the state to spend significantly more on those employees with the highest wages by continuing to go above and beyond federal law to cover Medicare Part B higher premium costs for high earning state employees.
• The governor’s deal would also ask more of non-hazardous-duty state employees, while allowing hazardous-duty employees to pay less in health care premium costs even though they retire at a younger age and receive benefits for a longer period of time.
• The deal also extends increased costs onto non-unionized employees but offers them no job security protections and continues to require non-union state employees to pay more for health care premiums. This incentivizes unionization of managers. 

OUR ALTERNATIVE

• Senate Republicans have offered a different concession plan that would achieve greater savings, reduce our unfunded liabilities, and create the stability our state employees who work hard every day deserve.
• Unlike other proposals, it does not include harmful wage reductions, excessive furlough days and does not change benefits until after 2022 once the current contract expires.
• Instead, it would put state employee benefits more in line with the benefits received by municipal union employees such as firefighters, police officers, and teachers and non-government union workers.
• It would create a fair system, with lower premium costs for those who make less.
• It could also be implemented by legislative action alone once the current labor contract expires because we are not interfering with existing contracts.

 

State Budget Labor Savings Must Exceed $2 Billion

Connecticut’s state budget is in dire straits. As we negotiate a two-year spending plan an overwhelming $5 billion deficit is threatening all state services. Unfortunately, this fiscal environment was predicted by me and my fellow Republican legislators over the past six years.

Governor Malloy’s budget proposal includes $1.567 billion in anticipated savings from negotiations with state employee unions. Twelve collective bargaining agreements are under negotiations now with the Governor. These new contracts will have long-term impacts on Connecticut taxpayers long after Governor Malloy leaves office in January 2019.

Given the bad news delivered by our state tax collector that the Top 100 taxpayers’ income dropped a whopping 45% last year, Governor Malloy should be seeking even greater savings from state employee union negotiations. Calculating the increased budget deficit projected since the Governor released his budget proposal requires an additional $664 million in labor savings.

Governor Malloy should be seeking $2.231 billion in labor savings during his twelve labor contracts negotiations. Connecticut taxpayers will vote with their feet if these negotiations fall short.

Why Question a Supreme Court Justice?

The recent editorial in The Connecticut Law Tribune regarding the role of the legislature in reviewing the reappointment of Justice Richard Palmer not only missed the mark of our state’s constitutional history and procedure, it actually contradicted itself in trying to argue for judicial independence and a rubber stamp approval of a justice.

Unlike the federal court system, where judges serve for life, our Constitution provides that justices are appointed to 8-year terms. Reappointment requires a legislative hearing and approval. The editorial seemed to indicate that any questioning of a justice was an improper violation of the separation of powers. I would argue that a lack of questioning would be an abdication of the legislature’s constitutional “check”, our duty to consider and approve a justice. Is the Judiciary the only branch of government worthy of protection in the editorial board’s eyes?

The editorial also decried any opposition to “judicial activism”, which it defined as “merely an indelicate euphemism for, ‘a position I disagree with.’" This is a petulant attempt at dismissing a theory and belief that a judge’s opinions should be based upon the law, not upon political or personal considerations, that the making of policy is a legislative function, not a judicial one. At least one justice recognized that, writing at the time of reappointment in 1999, “I do not believe judges are free to substitute their own views for those of the Constitutional framers or the legislature”. That justice was Richard Palmer. Why is it improper to now question him about substituting his views for those of the general assembly?

In his decision in Santiago II, Palmer ignored voluminous, unprecedented legislative intent to repeal the death penalty prospectively, arguably “substituting” his views for those of the lawmakers. The Chief State’s Attorney’s “Motion for Argument” states the opinion, “addresses issues, undertakes analysis and relies on materials that were never raised or presented by the defendant, and never subjected to any adversarial inquiry.” It also bases much of the decision on a shift in the “contemporary standards of decency.”

As stated in the editorial, "In his comments to the Program Review and Investigations Committee of our state Legislature, Judge Robert C. Leuba, then-chief court administrator, said, in October 2000, ‘judicial independence is critical to the functioning of any democracy,’ because it is the ‘duty of a judge to decide each case according to an objective evaluation and application of the law, without the influence of outside factors.’’ Palmer’s decision arguably involved the consideration of matters never raised by the defendant, as well as the nebulous “shift in standards of decency”. These were arguably “other factors” besides the law that were considered in the decision, but according to the editorial, should not be questioned. That is simply wrong.

Judicial activism should be shocking and abhorrent to all lawyers, legislators and citizens.

As to the fact that a majority had signed on to Palmer’s decision in LaPointe, and seemingly agreed to his harshly worded footnote, is not an excuse for Palmer. No other justice who signed onto the footnote was up for reappointment – only the author. In the interest of retaining civility at our state’s highest court, any justice who authors or agrees with such contemptuous writings should expect to be questioned about it at their time of reconfirmation.

The editorial continued, “It would be perfectly acceptable for legislators to vote against the confirmation of a judge whose lack of judicial temperament, ill manner and disregard for the rule of law have been well documented.” Judicial temperament and manners do not just extend to those appearing before a jurist. It is incumbent on the relationship with colleagues as well, and the recent writings of Justice Palmer raise legitimate questions as to his relationship with fellow justices.

The Law Tribune chooses to ignore the constitutional role of the legislature in the reappointment of justices and chooses to ignore serious issues raised by Justice Palmer’s decisions. They should not attack the General Assembly for choosing not to ignore their duty in such serious matters.

Reality for Our State Budget

I am pleased to support a Republican budget proposed today that closes the 2017 deficit of $935.7 million and creates a five-year framework that puts state government back on track.


Our proposal restores funding for social services, education and hospitals while providing municipalities with mandate relief. We refuse to force local property tax payers to shoulder the burden of the state budget mismanagement.


Since my arrival at the State Capitol in 2009 I've witnessed a dysfunctional state budget process that ignored future projections. Economists warned state officials the Connecticut economy was underperforming and business leaders warned us other states were far more responsible with their fiscal decisions.


Each year majority Democrat legislative leaders did a victory lap after passing a budget with no minority Republican support. I objected because none of these budgets were given proper public hearings. The budget bill often showed up on my desk two hours before Senate debate and voting began. Six-hundred pages describing over $20 billion in taxpayer spending that I must study and consider in two hours. A totally bizarre process!


Following two of the largest tax increases in state history we find the state budget over a billion dollars in the red this year. Expert projections show our next biennium budget deficit far exceeds four billion dollars.


Today Senate and House Republicans introduced a long term plan with meaningful structural budgetary changes. These tough decisions impact all of state government because we can't ignore the fiscal tsunami facing us next year.


Republican Budget Proposal details:
http://ctsenaterepublicans.com/2016/04/pathway-sustainability/

A Nasty Political Wedge in Connecticut

Tonight in the Judiciary Committee we are debating a hodgepodge bill. Legislation that addresses victims of human sex trafficking and has nearly unanimous support of committee members has been hijacked by majority Democrats to make a political statement using a big wedge.

Why? Politics at its worst.

Later tonight the Judiciary Committee is debating HB5054 – An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence from Governor Malloy. All of the language in this bill was dumped into HB5623 – An Act Concerning Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking. So we get to debate the same bill twice – all so majority Democrats can claim Republicans don’t respect women.

That’s politics at its worst.

Here’s the real story – Republicans on the Judiciary Committee oppose the temporary restraining order process proposed by Democrats. Why? The proposal has a dangerous lack of due process.

Connecticut currently has an effective process to remove firearms from a potential domestic violence perpetrator. A risk warrant process protects due process, requires an investigation and a hearing before a judge. The risk warrant is an effective way to protect victims of domestic violence. The proposed temporary restraining order process fails to protect due process.

So good legislation addressing victims of human sex trafficking gets a no vote because flawed legislation gets tacked on and voted on twice.

Hodgepodge. Politics at its worst!

Will the Transportation Lockbox Be Broken Open?

A transportation lockbox? Sounds like a good idea. Republicans at the Connecticut State Capitol have proposed this idea for many years without success. Now seems the time for a bit of common sense.


A resolution before the State Senate today requires voters to approve a constitutional amendment for the transportation lockbox on Election Day 2016. I predict it will meet overwhelming approval of Connecticut voters.


Here’s the problem – in 1992 over 80% of voters approved a constitutional spending cap but the Connecticut General Assembly has failed to fully implement the cap. Twenty-three years after voters changed the State Constitution legislators have not delivered a solid spending cap they demanded.


Will the new transportation lockbox be broken open by the same inaction of the Connecticut Legislature? Why do we make promises to voters and promptly drop the ball when it comes time to deliver on those promises?

Connecticut Senate's Nuclear Explosion

Connecticut Senate Democrats hit the nuclear option in the State Senate tonight when they stopped Republican debate on their train wreck state budget. This is the worst of politics in Connecticut.

The State Senate did not begin debate on the budget document until after 5:30 pm. The second largest tax increase in the history of Connecticut and debate limited to less than six hours.

Why? The deadline for the Connecticut General Assembly to complete business in the 2015 legislative session is Midnight. Imagine that? Hold the budget to the last six hours of a legislative session that began on January 7^th. Five months to get the work done and Senate Republicans were given six hours to debate spending $40 billion.

Vote Republican, Connecticut voters!

I Believe - A Veteran's Memorial Day

I BELIEVE

 

Colonel Albert D. Audette, Jr., U.S.A.F. (Retired)
Keynote Address – Memorial Day 2015
Danbury, Connecticut

Honored and Heroic Heroes, Men and Women of our Armed Forces and you, their Families, Mayor Boughton and Honored Guests, Americans,

Thank you for the great honor you do me by your invitation to be with you this Memorial Day. I am doubly honored when I return home to Danbury because – I carry with me, the Keys to the City of Danbury – a most memorable gift, given me some ten years ago by His Honor, Mayor Boughton.

On this, the beginning of my 83rd year – not only can I say that I am a veteran of two wars, I can say unequivocally that I believe in America.

I look around and see Americans! I see families waiting to become Americans… I see men, women and children here today who believe in America.

How very proud I am to be a veteran. How proud I am to call myself a patriot. There is a big difference between American service members and those of other nations.

I’ve travelled the world as a soldier-fighter pilot. I’ve personally trained fighter pilots from most every country… but there’s no one like an American.

I’ve figured out why. When Americans walk abroad, they can be picked out of any crowd! How? Because they walk as they do at home – free, without fear, and noble in that knowledge.

Because of our heritage, our soldiers, sailors and airmen measure a different depth of bravery, a more spirited depth of courage.

We do NOT fear to die for your country; rather, we fear that we will NOT bring honor to our country.

We serve because it is our DUTY and NOT because of gain.

This is why we call American fighting men and women heroes. Each is of Faith on one hand, and works on the other.

Our Founders were also men, women and families of Faith – and with that same difference.

As Saint James wrote. “Thus faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

The Faith of our Fathers resulted in their works: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

This great and mighty nation was founded on the notion that we are a free people with the right to pursue happiness and our individual dreams.

With the right to believe in our dream of liberty!

I believe in this Danbury land upon which we stand this moment – the only land in the entire universe that is, and always will be, a solid bastion of FREE PEOPLE.

I believe in our sweet, true and trusted values – where faith, goodness and courage are always fresh and made to flourish.

Because I believe in the innocence and naiveté of happiness – I believe these virtues find their homeland in America!

Since the Revolution, American men and women have given their hearts and lives for the freedoms and beliefs we hold as our own.

These warriors of Faith are buried honorably in our national and state cemeteries, many are buried at sea – where they fell.

And, the Lord forgive us, thousands are buried abroad in foreign countries – these, I say, bring them all home! Bring our fallen heroes home.

Today we honor them as they rest, their sacred work finished.

Within our soil lay the bones of many unknown heroes, whose bravery, courage, and patriotism they placed above their own… rest in peace and thank you, blessed brothers and sisters.

Some will say that we lost two wars. We soldiers have NOT…. I was in the Tet Offensive… history books say that we lost the Tet Offensive.

At dinner a few years ago a high school senior asked me to look at his term paper: The title was “How the U.S. Lost the Tet Offensive.” Though I went into the internet archives to prove that we had not – he replied that he had to repeat what was written in his history book!

We did not loose the Tet Offensive, son, I said, “I was there.”

Some will say we lost Fallujah… We soldiers will say we did not.

Our Fathers and Mothers have given us this soil, to guard and make prosper. I believe that our youth will one day provide even more!

I believe in our children, for we bequeath to them our Faith and our trust… everything to them, so that tomorrow, they will believe even greater things than we can.

I believe that freedom is the handmaid of Columbia, the woman whose statue stands aloft our Nation’s Capitol dome… through her gateway… anyone can climb to the greatest heights; for America is the fertile soil of curiosity.

I believe in our Republic, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights.

We are NOT a democracy… WE ARE A REPUBLIC! And I believe in all this!

I believe that no person has the right to restrain our freedom, to make us a nation we are not, or to prevent us from speaking our peace. Our Constitution, our Flag, and our United States of America are one entity – both under man and under God…

And shame the American who betrays either – but let him speak in peace.

As a soldier, I say, there is unfinished work to be done.

Today other enemies threaten us – and you know who and what they are – irrational terrorists who would fly their black flag above our nation.

Why have we lost what we had already gained?

Only true Americans believe – take a deep breath and BREATHE in America’s sweet Spirit – as you take another breath… feel, all the way through… to your very bones and heart… the Spirit of all Americans around the word and you who are with us today… and as far back to where our history began.

In 1892, an American who believed in that spirit, and in all we live for; wrote an American Pledge. Together, let’s say:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you dear family and God Bless our Heroes!

#

Colonel Albert D. Audette, Jr. is a Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport.

Father Audette enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1950 and was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Air Force in 1953. He served as a flight instructor, fighter pilot and as a staff officer in many major commands. In addition to serving as a combat pilot he served at Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force, was the Air Defense Attache with the State Department and served as the director of intelligence for the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Audette retired in 1980 at the rank of colonel.

Colonel Audette earned numerous air combat medals, a Portuguese Cross with Military Merit and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star.

In 1989, soon after the death of his beloved wife, Father Audette entered the seminary and was ordained in 1993. He served in several parishes in Danbury, Bethel and Brookfield prior to his mandatory retirement and now is a resident priest at the Basilica of Saint John the Evangelist in Stamford, Connecticut.

Father Audette’s “retirement” days remain very busy helping at the Basilica in addition to his newest focus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Center for Mental Health and Spiritual Development whose mission is to provide positive psychiatric care and mental health services to individuals and families unable to afford these services.

Father Al has four children, fourteen grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

Democrats Reject Clean Election Proposals

Many election campaign finance related bills were submitted to the Government Administration and Elections Committee of the Connecticut legislature this year but only one is moving forward with no Republican input.

 

Connecticut's Citizen Election Program is funded with taxpayer money and provides campaign grants to candidates. My state senate reelection campaign received nearly $100,000 from the program. The program was designed to eliminate outside influences in state political campaigns by forbidding businesses and lobbyists from a key role in the campaigns.

 

In 2013 Connecticut Democrats who control the legislature blasted bus-size loopholes into the Citizen Election Program with changes that received no Republican legislators vote.

 

Last year I talked about Democrats changing the campaign finance rules and then suing the campaign finance regulators.

 

Not only did the Democrats increase donor limits, lower safeguards and allow lobbyists to take a prominent role in campaigns again but they did all of this saying they must fight against the terrible impact of "Citizens United" - a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed freedom of speech for businesses.

 

The reality is we don't have a problem with Citizens United money in political campaigns in Connecticut. What the Democrats did was raise the issue as a major problem so they could create loopholes in our clean elections program and claim "we had no choice."

 

Poppycock!

 

Senate and House Republicans proposed a package of reforms to election laws this year, including the following changes: 

1. Cap organizational expenditures by state political parties (SB612)
2. Rollback the Democrats' increase of donor limits to state parties from $10,000 to $5,000 (HB6084)
3. Stop state contractor's political donations from being used in state races (SB385)
4. Eliminate public campaign financing grants to unopposed candidates (SB224)
5. Reduce all public financing campaign grants by 25% ((SB225)

Instead of bi-partisan support for clean elections in Connecticut like we had when the program was created in 2005 under Governor Rell's leadership we have the majority party running roughshod over the program.

An amazing proposal in SB1126 this year is limiting audits of the taxpayer-funded grants to a political campaign. The Democrats don't think they should be audited this year if they had an audit last year. It seems the way state government currently audits businesses, state grant recipients, state contractors and even taxpayers should not apply to the politicians.

How brazen is that?

NO to Casino Expansion in Connecticut

Casino expansion is the wrong direction for Connecticut. Danbury is the wrong location for a new casino in Connecticut. This proposal is a desperate move that offers no long-term benefits for our state.

Danbury’s economy is better suited to high technology and financial services expansion. Danbury consistently has the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Connecticut. Casino jobs offer no enhancement to western Connecticut’s economy.

New casino expansion in Connecticut proposed today will give us supermarket-sized casino parlors – not the same casinos we’re accustomed to at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Our state doesn’t need casino parlors dotting the landscape.

Slot machine revenues at Connecticut’s casinos are dropping precipitously due to the poor economy and new competition in the gambling market. We’ve seen this happen across the country and state government’s response elsewhere has proven Connecticut’s expansion proposal is a dead end.

Looking across the country we can see gambling parlors along interstate highways. These facilities are much smaller than the casinos within a casino we have in Connecticut. Picture a supermarket converted to a casino.

Atlantic City overbuilt their casino market and now they’re closing one after another. The gambling business is changing dramatically across the country. The Connecticut monopoly in the northeast is over and this proposal will not change our reality.

Should the Democrat majority of the Connecticut General Assembly insist on moving forward with this ill-advised idea then our state must renegotiate the tribal compact. Currently, state government shares in only a small portion of revenues generated by Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. This must change.

A new tribal compact must include state participation in all revenues at casino facilities in our state. Slot machines generate only 30% of casino revenue and we are currently limited to a piece of slot revenues. Table games like Poker, Blackjack, Baccarat and Roulette generate a large share of casino revenues and should be subject to a new compact. Negotiations for a new compact must include existing facilities at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun - not just expansion casino facilities.

A better idea is scrapping casino expansion in our state. Connecticut should help our two existing casinos focus on bringing tourists to their destination facilities. Allowing our casino operators to expand will only further erode their existing business.

"Closing Loopholes" is Real Raising Taxes...

Governor Malloy says he’s “closing loopholes” when he’s really raising taxes…

Response to the Governor's budget proposal from the business community was swift and harsh. The president of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Joseph Brennan said, “I think it strikes a blow at business confidence …strikes a blow at our recovery.”

State government grants to municipalities are essentially flat-funded or down slightly. That means local property tax payers must pick up the inflation costs and that translates into higher local property taxes.

The Governor’s budget proposal for the next two years claims to reduce the sales tax. The devil is always in the details. The reality is the budget proposal eliminates sales tax exemptions on clothing and restricts “Tax-Free Week.” We pay $57 million more in sales taxes.

Even your garbage collection costs are going up with Governor Malloy as he raises solid waste disposal fees.

Not only do you get more taxes from the Democrats but you also get a huge “get out of jail free” program. This budget predicts savings of nearly $50 million for releasing prisoners early over the next two years. Has anyone thought about the costs to monitor so many early-release prisoners?

Wait, there’s more. Governor Malloy doesn’t seem to like our third branch of government – the Judicial Branch. He proposes stripping over 1,500 employees from the Court Support Services Division and transferring them to the Executive Branch – now reporting to the Governor. Why is the Governor taking 35% of the Judicial Branch’s employees?

Transportation was a key focus of Governor Malloy’s budget address to the General Assembly. I’ll cover this topic in a future post.

I’ll keep reading and studying the details of Governor Malloy’s budget proposal. So far I see many questions.

#

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.

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 11^th 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 11^th 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 11^th. Thank you.



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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.