by Dan Lovallo
 
     Weather "experts" and insurance handicappers alike, had predicted that Connecticut would someday be hit by another hurricane.   It turns out, they were correct.   We've been hit by Hurricane Jodi.    Most of us know her as Governor Rell.   For our state's chief executive, no event is too small to whip into hurricane force, whether it means trampling on an individual's constitutional rights or manufacturing a crisis into a Catagory 4.   And this time, Hurricane Jodi was churning across the state at a furious rate.
     Take the case of serial rapist David M. Pollitt, released from prison, nearly a year ago, after serving his time in jail.   Under terms of his release, Pollitt would have to wear an ankle bracelet.  He also faced numerous other restrictions, while living at his sister's house in Southbury.   This set off a firestorm in the neighborhood, where his sister and her family reside.    Despite grandstanding by the governor and "Eternal" General Richard Blumenthal that this wasn't right, Pollitt was allowed to move to the neighborhood, because he had fulfilled the terms of his imprisonment, under the law of the land.    Hurricane Jodi howled the loudest, once again infuriating the minority community, which - and rightly so - claimed the winds of fury never blow in their direction, when there are repeated felonies in urban areas.
    Last week, Pollitt was arrested for "violating" his probation, allegedly wandering off his sister's property.   Hurricane Jodi stirred the public into a frenzy, demanding Pollitt's immediate incarceration, afterall, the vaunted GPS device, on which so much of the state's public safety rests these days, could never fail.   The silence from Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane was deafening, when asked about Rell's comments.   For some reason, Kane was operating under the constitutional premise that a man deserves his day in court.  
    Pollitt claimed his GPS device repeatedly malfunctioned and cited incidents with a detailed log he had kept.   Sure enough, when he received that day in court - long after he was tried, convicted and jailed by Rell - prosecutors, with evidence from the company monitoring Pollitt, decided they had no case.   Pollitt was correct.   The device malfunctioned and he never left his sister's property.   The serial rapist and his family, had more credibility on the issue than the governor.
    A mea culpa from Rell? No way.   "The only apology that is due is the one Mr. Pollitt owes his many victims," she said.    Apparently Rell adheres to the theory that those, who've fulfilled their prison terms and the innocent family members, who courageously take them into their homes,have no constitutional rights.   Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro would be proud.
    Predictably, Rell's sycophants in the media, jumped to her defense, saying "this is a moral issue, and Pollitt belongs in jail," even though there are no laws on the books to cover this situation.   It would be like me, who opposes abortion, saying all those performing abortions should be jailed immediately.   Until abortions are outlawed, they have every right to be performed in this country, as morally repugnant as I find the act.   But when it comes to Rell's defenders, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
    Meanwhile, Hurricane Jodi was just picking up steam.   When prices started climbing at the gas pumps in the wake of Hurricane Ike, Rell immediately howled "price gouging," even though she was informed by Eugene Guilford, executive director of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association, before she issued her statement, there would be a price spike.   Because Ike had led to the shutdown of one-fifth of the nation's refineries and closure of the pipeline, between Texas and Lynnhurst, N.J., wholesale prices had increased.    No matter, our fearless leader, never missing an opportunity to posture, established a hot line for price gouging complaints, and along with her media lackeys, boasted how the lines were flooded with calls, forgetting that people would complain about price gouging, if the cost at the pump went up two cents a gallon.
    Meanwhile, Guilford, attempting to withhold his anger, because he has to deal with this  crowd, said on my radio program, "anyone who would want to say that a retailer would be behaving irresponsibly by passing on some of that 36 cents, simply doesn't understand what it's like to be in business."   
    Michael J. Fox, head of the Connecticut Gasoline Automotive Dealers Association, echoed the same sentiments, adding, "The governor reacted pretty quickly."   Again, because he has to associate with this kneejerk bunch, he said he redrafted a letter to Rell "about 50 times," to make sure his initial outrage over her actions were not included in the final letter.
   But that didn't stop Rell, who proudly announced price gouging investigations were under way, including the subpoeaning of Cumberland Farms records, because "they were selling gas for 20 cents more per gallon than the other stations."   It would seem consumers would be savvy enough to patronize the stations "selling" cheaper gas, without an investigation, wouldn't it?     My hunch is Rell will shakedown "the Cumby's" to the tune of 50 or 100 grand for the state till, and the company will pay, concluding it's not worth the fight.
   Meanwhile, Hurricane Jodi remains at fullforce, a Catagory 4, ready to strike at any opportunity, where a grandstand is located.  Perhaps it's time for the federal government to step in and declare Connecticut a disaster area.
 
Dan Lovallo can be heard 3pm-6pm every weekday afternoon on The Talk of Connecticut's WDRC-AM 1360, WMMW-AM 1470, WWCO-AM 1240 & WSNG-AM 610
danlovallo@talkofconnecticut.com

by Dan Lovallo

Once in a while, even Governor M. Jodi Rell gets it right, as unwitting as her actions may be.   Earlier this week, the governor, who has now been in office as the state's Chief Executive and lieutenant governor for 5,000 days, warned the state legislature Connecticut is facing a $150 million deficit for the current fiscal year and that she won't support tax hikes to cover the shortfall.    The General Assembly, controlled overwhelmingly by liberal Democrats, agreed, more taxes would not be the way to go...for now.   After this year, all bets are off.
 
In fact, the governor managed to out one of the legislature's leading spenders, Rep. Denise W. Merrill, D-Mansfield, who co-chairs the Appropriations Committee.  She's never met a tax hike she didn't like, all in the name of her beloved liberalism.  So when the governor made the current deficit an issue, Merrill cried foul, claiming Rell was playing politics in an election year.   Why would the governor be talking about tax increases, when nobody was talking about any, she wondered?   Maybe because the Queen of public service announcements wants to get candidates on the record, now, particularly since those candidates, who win in November, will have the responsibility of dealing with a new two-year budget come January.
 
For example, Senate President Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, another diehard liberal, won't commit to a "no tax hike pledge" beyond this year.    Neither will the tax-and-spend Merrill, and for that matter, neither will Governor Rell, a Republican who is as much responsible for this mess as the opposition party.
 
Senator Williams would not rule out tax increases for the upcoming budget.   He says it's not a first or second option, but that he shouldn't be locked into to a "no tax hike" pledge.   Translation, "Vote for me, tax hikes aren't on the front burner."    Then, wammo, the minute he's back in office, "Well, we've looked at the budget and instead of making cuts, we'll have to raise your taxes."
 
The fact is, voters should make this campaign about the bottom line and insist that those running for the state house and senate pledge to support no tax hikes or for that matter, "read my lips," no new taxes.   Connecticut ranks third in the nation already, with the highest state and local property tax burden.  
 
The governor, and her predecessors, in cahoots with a liberal Democrat legislature, that for years has been the puppet of the public-employee unions, have led Connecticut into quicksand that has us sinking toward bankruptcy.   They wouldn't run their own household that way, but they're quick to run yours that way, all in the name of getting reelected and pandering to the special interests in one fell swoop.
 
And what have Connecticut taxpayers received for all this?   The departure of industry, slow population growth, two major cities near bankruptcy, that are about to ask for a state bailout and other municipalities teetering on the financial edge.   In return, the Nutmeg State has become a magnet for any person or group in need of a direct handout or other taxpayer supported social program.
 
You don't think the above paragraph is true?   Then look at Waterbury, which eight years ago, was ready to declare bankruptcy.   After a grueling fight in the legislature, as public employee unions lobbied lawmakers hard to oppose a state oversight board for the Brass City, then Governor John Rowland twisted enough arms to get the oversight board anyway.
All it did was save the day, as Waterbury was put on a strict financial diet, to get its fiscal house in order.    Today, the city's Mayor, Michael Jarjura, proudly says, "We've had seven straight years of balanced budgets and are projecting a surplus for the current budget."   Can Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven say the same?    Or for that matter the state?
 
Jarjura, a Democrat, and former five-term state representative, has angered members of his own party and faced union static, because he preaches fiscal prudence.   The mayor predicted years ago many cities in Connecticut, and the state itself,  were facing financial distress because of fiscal malfeasance on the part of its elected officials.    He also admits, "you won't see a strong state oversight board for these other cities," because the unions won't allow it.
 
Connecticut needs to take draconian action, and that means dealing with the 80,000 pound guerilla in the room, the public employee unions. Massive cuts to the state workforce, which numbers nearly 60,000, must be made.  The unions will tell you that won't save taxpayers much money.   But if you cut the number of government programs run by this bloated bureaucracy, then savings will be realized.
 
Unfortunately, Rell and the liberal Democrats don't have the courage to deal with the issue, head on, giving it nothing more than election year lip service.   Better to talk about fiscal prudence, while wasting another state surplus on more government programs, - see the last special session.   Better to run up the state's indebtedness to the tune of $54 billion dollars, by spending state taxpayers money on playscapes, basketball courts, lights for high school fields, golf courses and store fronts, than leveling with the people and telling them "it's time for some pain," followed by the deep budget cuts required to restore the state's financial equilibrium.   No, it's all about reelection, power and pensions.   Let future generations deal with the situation.
 
During the fall campaign, it's paramount that voters get candidates on the record against tax hikes for the next budget cycle.   Otherwise,  you can bank on Rell, with a newly elected liberal Democrat-controlled legislature, raising and adding new taxes.   If you don't think so, just read their quotes.   As Senator Williams said, "Like the governor, the responsible thing to do is not say things to lock yourself in for years to come."   Translation, reelect the liberal Democrats and tax hikes are coming, unless voters make the right choice at the ballot box.
 

by Dan Lovallo
 
Why do I think, if more people had registered as Republicans than Democrats this year, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, wouldn't have held a news conference this week to herald the results?     The current occupant of what is supposed to be a nonpartisan position, has blatantly turned the job into a backroom political office to expand the Democrat party liberal base and her own political future.
 
To wit, Madam Secretary has been conducting a major drive to register Latino voters.   She wants 10,000  Latinos signed up by late October and currently has 5,800 under wraps.   Bysiewicz has even dubbed the campaign "Tu Voto Si Cuenta."   I suppose you have to press "2" for the English translation.
 
The Secretary of the State has targeted 11 cities for her registration drive: Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Wallingford, Waterbury and Willimantic.  And not so coincidentally, the vast majority of new voters have signed up as Democrats, which just happens to be Bysiewicz' party.
 
Wouldn't it have been better, if the Secretary of the State had launched a voter drive that appealed to all ethnic backgrounds across the entire state?    And shouldn't the campaign have been conducted in English?
 
That would have been the right thing to do, but Madam Secretary is not interested in that approach.   As Connecticut's population growth dwindles  - we could lose yet another Congressional seat in the next census - the Secretary of the State and her liberal cohorts need to expand their base, by reaching out to those in urban areas, while turning a blind eye to the illegal alien issue in the hopes a blanket amnesty will be forthcoming, if Barack Obama is elected.    Such a scenario would provide the perfect backdrop to make Connecticut and the nation, even more of a magnet to expand the liberal's socialist agenda and thus insure public dependency on their continuation in office, all at taxpayers' expense.
 
If anything, her current campaign, manages to relegate a proud, ethnic group, which has made major contributions to our country, to second rate status.   For our Secretary of the State, however, political expediency has always trumped nonpartisanship.  When then Republican minority leader Senator Lou Delucca, was in trouble for ostensibly cavorting with a Danbury trash hauler, Bysiewicz was the first to call for his resignation.   But when then Senator Ernie Newton, a Bridgeport Democrat, would not resign after scamming the taxpayers with bogus grant programs for his city - Newton is now in jail, Delucca is not -  Madam Secretary was silent, until finally pressed on the issue, during my talkshow.
 
And it doesn't stop there.   When Connecticut voters go to the polls on November 4, they will be asked to decide whether a constitutional convention should be called to amend the state constitution.    Liberals and the unions oppose the convention, for fear people will have a greater say in how their government is run.   Bysiewicz has publicly come out in opposition to the convention, urging a "no" vote, much to the delight of the liberal crowd.   It would be like an umpire, working a Yankee-Red Sox game, publicly acknowledging he hopes the Red Sox win.    Supporters of a constitutional convention - and I'm one of them- better root for an overwhelming "yes" vote, otherwise it will be Bysiewicz, who will be commanding the recount.    Good luck.
 
Whether it's manufacturing a bogus issue on veterans being denied the chance to register to vote, circumventing federal law to lower the voting age to 17, or cozying up to former Senator John Edwards on his summer visit to Hartford, Bysiewicz has proven to be the Secretary of the State for liberal Democrats and not all of the people.  
 
To paraphrase a true, dynamic leader, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, "In politics, there are some candidates, who use change to promote their careers, and there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."     Count your Secretary of the State among the former, a constitutional officer, on the taxpayers' dole, who's managed to turn a nonpartisan office, into a launching pad to "promote a career"   steeped in advancing the liberal agenda.
 

by Dan Lovallo

... And you thought Connecticut's General Assembly, at the behest of Governor M. Jodi Rell and her willing accomplices in the media, met in special session last week to pass a plan to help people pay for their home heating bills.   As we predicted in this space, this was nothing more than a "dog and pony show."   In the end, they didn't even pass a plan, but two bills that outline concepts of how the "energy crisis" should be handled.   Details will be worked out later.    Ah, liberalism in its finest hour, spending your money on a concept, because you're not capable of making decisions yourself.
 
True to form, our photo-op craved legislature, even managed to allot more money for the program than what's available in the "surplus," $79M instead of $75M.   Or is the "surplus" $22M.   Or 87M?    It doesn't matter, not only are you not receiving a rebate from this overpayment to government, you'll need to negotiate through a maze of red tape to get that "help" to pay for heat.   With a little luck, government assistance will come your way by springtime.     But don't worry, our illustrious "leaders" have voted to extend portions of the plan, beyond the 2009 fiscal year.    So much for a "one time only program," as we were promised by certain media stalwarts beholden to the current Rell administration.
 
Of course, the "crisis" was so dire, it required two bills, SB1101 and SB1102.    The first measure passed unanimously.   At least four Republicans had the courage to vote against the second bill, 76th Dist. Rep. John Piscopo, R-Thomaston, 74th Dist. Rep. Selim Noujaim, R-Waterbury, 62nd Dist. Rep. Richard Ferrari, R- E. Granby and 86th Dist. Rep. Vincent Candaleria, R-N. Branford..
 
The Office of Policy and Management, which falls under the governor's control, will now get to work on putting together the plan, which faces a Nov. 30 deadline.  But, don't worry, there's plenty of time for the bureaucracy to do what it does best, create more bureaucracy. The plan must then go back to legislative leaders, and then on to the Appropriations Committee.   But guess what?    Other committees could also get involved, setting in motion a volleyball match between the legislature and governor that would even make Misty May-Treanor's head spin.
 
As Rep. Noujaim acknowledged to me in a radio interview, "It could be April, before eligible people receive energy relief."
 
But it doesn't matter.    The special interests, who lobbied for what should have gone to the taxpayers, got their handout and the politicos received their favorable publicity from certain media members, who have an insatiable appetite of being near the seat of power.  Unless, of course, they believe $2M, earmarked for the Department of Social Services to instruct the poor and downtrodden on the principals of weatherization is money better spent than being returned to the taxpayer. (See section 10 of SB 1102.)   
 
There's also millions more earmarked for the non-profit Operation Fuel, still peeved it didn't receive more money than it was originally promised.   The 30 year old program, designed to help people pay their heating bills, who can't get help from the government, also managed to get the threshold raised, so a family of four, earning just under $94,000 annually, will qualify.   Who knew, people at that level - with IPODS and flat panel TV sets - were so poverty stricken?  And don't forget, there's an additional half million dollars to help Operation Fuel with its proverbial "administrative costs."
 
Our state legislature also assured the public that the program will continue beyond the current fiscal year, with appropriated funds not "expended" at the end of June 30, 2009, to be carried over into the next fiscal year.    So much for a one-year plan.
 
As for the oil and natural gas suppliers?    The "plan" places greater restrictions on how you do business with even more audits of your operations on the drawing board.    So, if you thought you had to deal with a bureaucracy before, in the words of a true conservative, "you ain't seen nothin' yet."
 
Yes, liberalism had its finest hour last week, creating more bureaucracy, more government programs and widening the net of those who feed at the public trough.    Better to let the government spend the people's money, instead of the people themselves.
 

by Dan Lovallo
 
The upcoming weekend is a big one for the state\'s highest profile "learning" institution.   Some 3,500 freshmen will report to the University of Connecticut\'s main campus at Storrs.   And by the sounds of things in the school\'s student newspaper, "The Daily Campus," the incoming class better bring coolers, condoms and birth control pills.    Although, the latter two items are available at various campus locales.
 
Somehow, in the numerous mainstream newspaper stories backslapping the 19th ranked public university in the nation, sex and booze failed to get a mention.   However, a listener to my radio talkshow, expressed shock over the stories in the student newspaper.   She wrote in an email, "I am a very traditional conservative mom, who worked very hard to teach and support traditional values in our home.   In fact, my husband and I sacrificed to ensure our children received a Catholic education, which supported the beliefs we hold so dear."
 
Because it would be "cost prohibitive" for her youngest son to attend a Catholic college, it was decided UConn would be his school of choice.    The university, she wrote, "proclaimed itself a premier university, during the recruiting process..."    Recently, however, her son received a copy of the student newspaper, and she began to question the "premier" part of the university.   
 
Our emailer was shocked to learn - and so was I - from a front page story in the August 4 edition of "The Daily Campus," that under a pilot program, males and females share the same dorm room.    A UConn official - highly paid with taxpayers\' or tuition money, no doubt - says the program will probably be expanded as "students said it was an extremely positive experience."   I\'m sure it was, depending on your definition of "positive."
 
The expected pro-Obama story was given some play in the paper.    Nothing about John McCain.   In fact, a Cheech and Chong story received more coverage.    And the story that really rankled our emailer, was one headlined "Sex and the University,"  accompanied by a huge picture of a condom.   The campus correspondent began the piece, "When you walk down the aisle at graduation, class of 2012, how many people in Gampel Pavilion will have seen you naked?    She then relates 10 things she\'s learned about sex, "from personal experience as well as from friends," during her college years.
 
Among her recommendations are don\'t feel pressured right away, as "there are many opportunities to party."   Another:   "It\'s not a competition.   If you\'ve slept with 50 girls, that\'s great, but I bet I could find someone who\'s slept with 51.   In the end, no one cares how many people you\'ve had sex with.    Quantity isn\'t synonymous with quality."    She also was quick to remind us "drunk sex sucks," and the various campus locations where "condoms, lube and the \'morning-after pill\' " are available.      The writer suggested students shouldn\'t be pressured into sex, then added the fall semester will be marked by the annual "parade of virgins, marching down North Hillside Road."    No pressure at all, just broadcast one\'s availability on the first weekend, before classes start.
 
The writer of this story cancelled an appearance on my program, claiming I was portraying her as promiscuous.    A caller, claiming to be the writer\'s boyfriend (which one?), then called to defend his girl\'s honor, taking issue with my comment that "rampant sex on universities, without consequence, is another reason this country is stepping into a moral gutter," his   sarcastic laugh, mocking my analysis.   I wonder if he\'ll be laughing, when the bills come due?   Probably not.    He\'ll turn to some taxpayer supported government bailout.
 
I\'m not naive enough to believe underage binge drinking and rampant sex doesn\'t exist on our college campuses.   But isn\'t it one of the reasons our country is sinking into this immoral cavity?    Shouldn\'t there be some responsibility?     A sexual exposure chart from the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows, that if you and your partner each have had 5 sexual partners, it means the number of people you\'ve been exposed to, who have had sex - perhaps unprotected - is 31.    The numbers grow substantially after that.   Twelve partners each, adds up to 4,095 people to whom you\'ve been exposed.   I hasten to thing what 51 people computes out to be.
 
The mom, who emailed me has every right to be concerned.   And so should all taxpayers.   We\'re paying a hefty price for this behavior and at a taxpayer supported institution no less.    Yet, what is the recommended solution?    In the case of binge drinking, college presidents want to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18.   And they have a willing supporter in the co-chair of the state legislature\'s judiciary committee, liberal State Representative Michael Lawlor, D- East Haven.  Should we open up campus bordellos to accommodate binge sex too?   We could even rename the University of Connecticut the University of Ill Repute.
 
Fortunately, not all those attending UConn or other schools are immature.   In fact, I received calls from young adults, who belong to the Family Institute of Connecticut.   In their early 20\'s, they told me that they understood, that with adulthood comes responsibility.    It\'s a start.