William Cibes is back, extolling the virtues of liberalism and the tax-and-spend policies that go with it.  Cibes, you may recall, is the man who convinced Governor Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1991, to push for a state income tax, when he served as the secretary of the office of policy and management.   Connecticut has never been the same since.
     For his efforts in taking more money out of your paycheck to enhance his, Cibes was rewarded with the job as chancellor of the Connecticut State University System.   Upon his retirement, he was given the "job" of chancellor emeritus, even though a successor was named to succeed him as chancellor.   As the state spirals towards an unmanageable debt, one wonders - it takes days to get the information - how much the additional title nets Cibes, who already is rewarded with a handsome annual pension, having worked in state government most of his life.
     In an editorial for the Hartford Courant, Cibes scolds some state officials for talking about budget cuts, as we drown in red ink.   "Many are taken in by the seductive call to reduce state spending," he writes.  
     Cibes may have missed the story on his way to the bank, cashing that pension check, but Connecticut is coming off of a fiscal year, having finished $1B in debt.   The state not only borrowed money to "balance the books," but then spent the $1.3B it had in the rainy day fund, to produce a mandated "balance budget" again this year.   It was a spending plan, that was bogus from the get go, passed two months late and opposed by Republicans, who claimed it was still in the red, even after all of the aforementioned budget gimmicks.
     Now, the chickens have come home to collect their money and state comptroller Nancy Wyman is projecting a more than half billion dollar debt. Stop me, if you haven't heard this before.   With seven months to go in the current fiscal year, it is likely the debt will approach $1B, as income tax revenue is down - even after the state raised the income tax on the so-called rich yet again, sales tax revenue is down, the casino contribution to the state is down...well, you get the idea.   If that's not enough, the state unemployment compensation fund is broke.   And did we mention the state pension fund, from which Cibes collects, is $54B in the red?
     The stark reality is now facing some Connecticut officials.   Gov. M. Jodi Rell has called the legislature into special session on Dec. 15, asking them to vote on her recommended cuts to keep the budget somewhat in balance.    Reducing municipal assistance, elimating nursing education programs and other educational cuts are on the governor's chopping block.  
     Cibes, who never met a liberal candidate he didn't like, having made contributions in the past to the Ned Lamont and Christopher Dodd senate campaigns, writes about the havoc this would cause to education.   "The state's largest and poorest cities, which depend much more than wealthy towns on state aid, would bear the brunt of the cut.   Starving poor kids' minds, in municipalities where the educational achievement gap is highest, is hardly the path to economic competitiveness."
     No where does Cibes mention he helped champion the state income tax.   No where does he mention, since the income tax took effect in 1992, Connecticut's net job growth has been zero.   
     The Cibes-Weicker income tax was supposed to reverse the "poorest cities."   The income tax was supposed to close "the educational achievement gap."    The income tax was supposed to bring us on "the path to economic competitiveness."    We tried it the Cibes way and it failed.  
     Sadly, the former head of the state's education system still needs to be educated in economics.   Instead, he supports the policies that sunk Connecticut into a financial quagmire.   Then again, most people who promote withholding more money from your paychecks, while advocating for higher taxes and fees, are blind to seeing the errors of their ways, especially when they are the beneficiaries.  
 

There is plenty for which to be thankful, during this Thanksgiving weekend, including democracy.   That's right.   Democracy may actually be making a comeback in Connecticut.  For decades, the Democrat party has had a stranglehold on Connecticut government, but the tide may be turning.
     Evidence the shrill comments, coming from the Democrat camp, as the Republican party seems to be putting together a formidable slate of candidates for the November 2010 elections.  Their reaction on the latest Quinnipiac poll numbers, involving eternal U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, is further proof the party, which has dominated deep blue Connecticut for far too long, maybe losing its grip.  Perhaps the public is awakening to the fact the dominant party deserves most of the blame, as the state continues to drown in red ink and businesses close and leave at a record pace.
    Earlier this month, when the much respected Q-poll showed Sen. Dodd losing to former congressman Rob Simmons or upstart candidate Linda McMahon, the state Democrat publicity machine, led by Communications Director Colleen Flanagan, issued a statement not only criticizing the numbers, but headlining it "Q-Poll's Funny Numbers."   Keep in mind, the Q-Poll correctly predicted the 2008 election results and has an excellent track record.   But for Democrats, why let the facts get in the way of a good publicity release.
    "In general, when candidates don't like the poll results, they usually attack the polls," said the poll's director, Dr. Douglas Schwartz.
     Flanagan even made little ol' Litchfield County the centerpiece of the poll ambush.  "Litchfield County, the smallest of Connecticut's counties in terms of population density, was the only county George W. Bush won in 2004.   In this poll, Dodd is beating Simmons by 11 percent and trailing McMahon by 17 percent."   Flanagan wanted to know why such a huge swing?
     "Litchfield County is so small.   We probably had 50 respondents with a margin of error of 15, if not more.   I don't put a lot of stock into a regional breakdown.   You report it, but you really have to be cautious with those numbers," Schwartz retorted.
      In her release, Flanagan also suggested the poll was weighted.  "The poll does not screen for likely voters, which is obviously a more accurate method to gauge voters' opinions," said Flanagan.
     "Wrong!"  Schwartz exclaimed.   "It's way too early to go to likely voters.   You go to the likely voters once you've got a Republican candidate.
     "I would love for any campaign that criticizes our poll to tell us their numbers.   Tell us exactly what you did.   Show us the questions.   Show us the sampling.   Was it random?  Did you dial?   Did you use a list?   When did you do the poll?   Did you weight your numbers?  
     "They (the campaign) shouldn't be allowed to just get away with this.   Throwing stones and nobody asking them any questions," said an excited Schwartz.
     The greatest piece of evidence, of course, is the money.   (Curiously, Dodd's poll number dropped, after a massive fundraiser headlined by President Barack Obama in October.)   And the proof shows millions pouring into the state for both Democrats and Republicans, a sure sign Connecticut may be a two-party state again.   And that's something for which to be grateful, while eating Thanksgiving leftovers this weekend.
    
 

    Somehow, I don't think this is what even deep blue Connecticut had in mind, when it overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama's "hope and change" one year ago - a stimulus package that provides government jobs to those, who already work in government.   Although I've never been a proponent of running up the nation's credit card to artificially prime the country's economic pump, I thought we were led to believe the government's $1 trillion stimulus program would create private sector jobs?

     Per usual, the latest liberal government taxpayer-supported work program, creates or maintains more government jobs.   Meanwhile, a nation and a state's debt have climbed to unsustainable levels, while the private sector continues to suffer.

     Among those, receiving a stimulus package bailout is State Rep. Jeffrey J. Berger, D-73rd District.   That's right.   Rep. Berger, who already receives a handsome annual salary and benefits for serving in a part time legislature, Rep. Berger, who receives a pension as a retired Waterbury police officer, Rep. Berger, who also is a realtor, has been hired to work for the Waterbury school system.    In addition to all his income streams, Rep. Berger will now be paid $19.81 per hour to arrange for the professional development of Waterbury's education staff.    Say what?

     As Rep. Berger receives yet another paycheck,  a "Robert in Naugatuck" calls my radio program, bemoaning the fact he's tried for a year to get a job.   Maybe he ought to contact Rep. Berger, and ask to arrange his work schedule, which must be a busy one.

    Had enough?   Oh, it gets better.   President Obama's stimulus package needs oversight, for proper implementation in each community.   To the rescue comes Waterbury Alderman Antonio Pinto, hired on the taxpayers' credit card to the tune of $75,000 annually.   Maybe "Robert in Naugatuck" could help him out.
   
    The sad apart about this entire story, is how many other Rep. Bergers and Antonio Pintos are out there, working in government stimulus jobs, while the rest of the nation struggles?   The jobless rate in Connecticut has topped eight percent, while Rep. Berger collects four paychecks and "Robert in Naugatuck" looks for a job.  

    Across the nation, as a stimulus package has been used to give government employees more government jobs or maintain state government jobs, the private sector is starting to sink.   The unemployment rate is 10.2 percent, but Dr. Jerome Corsi, pegs the actual rate at 22 percent.   The Harvard graduate and best selling author, who has started several successful financial services marketing firms, writes in his online newsletter Red Alert, "The Clinton administration changed the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated unemployment statistics by excluding 'discouraged workers,' those who have given up looking for jobs, because there are no jobs to be found."   Dr. Corsi predicts that unless we get our financial house in order, another economic meltdown looms.  

    Meanwhile, as Rep. Berger collects four paychecks plus additional money as House  chairman of the legislature's Commerce Committee, economists predict Connecticut's economic slump will continue.   The latest New England Economic Partnership report indicates the state, which has lost 79,100 jobs from March 2008 through August 2009, will shed another 22,300 jobs.   Their predictions are usually accurate.   The Partnership also forecasts Connecticut will lag the rest of the nation, once the recovery begins.

    "The Connecticut economy is in for a rough ride," said Fairfield University professor Edward J. Deak, one of the report's authors.

    So remember, as "Robert in Naugatuck" and others like him look for work, there really has been "hope and change," but it's the kind of "hope and change" only a state representative could love.
 

by Dan Lovallo

     We are taught in school, at least we were taught in school, that our government has three branches: executive, legislative and judicial.    In fact, the U.S. Constitution was based on Connecticut's constitution.   Our founding fathers settled on the Connecticut plan of an upper and lower chamber in the Congress.   Thus, we were able to get a federal constitution passed, thanks to the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise of 1787.   It was also known as Sherman's Compromise, because it was our state's Roger Sherman, who played a major role in bringing about this change.    If only Connecticut followed the lead, it provided an infant nation more than two centuries ago.  
     We are told the three branches of government provide a natural tension, creating a checks and balances system that prevents one branch of becoming omnipotent.    Unfortunately, in Connecticut we have more than three branches of government.   Not only do we have the judicial and legislative branches, but an executive branch that has become splintered, creating an omnipotence, the system is supposed to avoid.
     The executive branch, is in fact, several branches in one.   The constitutional officers, such as the Attorney General, Secretary of the State, State Comptroller and State Treasurer are separate from the governor's office, creating an environment that undermines checks and balances and affords the perfect opportunity to conduct political witch hunts against the party in power.   
     Connecticut's current political environment, entering an election year, is a perfect example.   Democrats control the General Assembly in veto proof numbers.   The state constitutional officers are all Democrats, except the governor, the lone Republican in power.    So guess who is under investigation these days?    The governor.   Not by the legislature or judiciary, which is customary and in some cases political enough, under checks and balances, but by the other members of the executive branch.
     Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is the master of omnipotence, as he investigates the governor - at the urging of members of his own party - on trumped up charges of using taxpayers' money to conduct a poll.    Because Blumenthal is elected and not part of a gubernatorial cabinet, as we see at the federal level, the climate is rife for political opportunism.
     At this writing, Blumenthal has been in office for 6,882 days.   And he is running for re-election.    Enter a Google search on "Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigates" and 380,000 entries come up.   But who investigates the Attorney General?    Of the more than 300 surrogates in his department, how many are Democrats?   How many are Republicans?    How many of the people and businesses that he investigates are associated with Republicans and how many with Democrats?   And what of the cost to taxpayers on many of these political witch hunts disguised as investigations.
     Where's the objectivity, when Blumenthal campaigns across the state for many Democrats, running for municipal office
 or represents particular groups in court cases - at taxpayers' expense - though such representation may not be for the common good of an entire state?  
     And what of Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who should be non partisan, doing everything possible last year to stymie efforts to bring about a Constitutional Convention?    Such a convention, might have brought about the fundamental change necessary to bring state government back in balance.   But beholden to the public employee unions, who opposed such a convention, Bysiewicz, who needs their support to be elected governor, did everything possible to prevent a convention from happening.
     Just three days removed from our municipal elections, voters need to remember, when they vote in 2010, to remove those from office, who pretend to represent the people, but in reality, are the ultimate tools of the special interests.   Connecticut is rife with office holders, benefitting from a system that has gone awry.