Sad State of Municipal Politics

Yesterday the state was hit with its first major snow storm of the season. As usual, the Hartford Courant, WTNH Channel 8 News and others (oddly enough though, not the New Haven Register...) were on the beat to report on the conditions of the storm. The first sentence of the Courant article says it all: "A heavy snowfall blanketed most of the state Thursday, shutting down stretches of the state's major thoroughfares, grounding airplanes and causing hundreds of traffic accidents." I sincerely hope you did not have to drive around yesterday. And if you did, I hope that you were able to get home safely, with relatively little cursing or stress-related hair loss.


I had the good fortune to drive through New Haven during the aftermath of the storm. The Elm City did not even begin to plow it's roadways until after the storm ended. By 3pm, many streets were still icy, slushy, slippery and dangerous. The winter mess left on Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue, and other major thoroughfares tied up traffic and made travel almost impossible. No doubt it led to several accidents as well. Where were the plows? Where was the salt? Where was the city when it was needed to perform it's municipal functions?

What yesterday's storm showed, with ice crystal clarity, was how woefully unprepared for winter Connecticut's municipalities are. One of the major functions we have entrusted to our municipalities is the maintenance of our roadways. Now, it appears they are not able to carry out even that correctly. Why? Where was the equipment, the preparedness and the money to keep our right-of-ways safe and clear?

It brought to mind another rumor I heard about New Haven. Apparently, the tallest ladder in the city is only 11 stories. Meanwhile, there are at least 5 high-rise buildings taller than that in the city. As the recent blaze this week showed, a fire can happen anywhere in the city, at any time. What if it had been the Connecticut Financial Center (27 floors) or the Knights of Columbus Building (23 stories)? Would the city have been prepared to deal with that type of fire emergency? And knowing that its equipment was inadequate, wouldn't it make the purchase of fire fighting equipment its number one priority? I mean, fire protection is one of the primary and most basic functions of municipal government.

Fire protection, police services, roadway maintenance... these are vital municipal functions that directly affect people lives. Neglect of these duties results in property damage, bodily injury, and in some cases death. So why does it seem that New Have is ignoring these vital functions? It's not for lack of funds. New Haven's proposed FY2007-2008 total budget is $717.6 million. Not to mention the fact that my property taxes are over 4.2%. In fact I just paid the tax bill on my car, and it was not cheap. Plus, city taxes are figured into my monthly rent. Where are all of our tax dollars going?

The city is spending $39.8 million (5.5%) on Police Services. Another $32.7 million (4.6%) on Fire Protection. Public Works gets a mere $18.1 million (2.5%). Where does the rest go? A variety of other social services, Debt Service $57.7 million (8.0%), and of course Education, at a whopping $348.6 million (48.6%). Then, I find this story by Elizabeth Benton from Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007 in the New Haven Register.

"Officials laud citywide housing initiative: Over the last five years, $59.5 million has gone into building 321 housing units at 26 sites citywide, the last of which are currently under construction."

And remember the Elm City Resident Card? The one which allows illegal aliens to access city services... The list could go on and on. And I'm sure that your local town's budget is not much different.

The point is that our municipalities seems to be neglecting their most basic functions: Police, Fire, Roadway Maintenance... in favor of programs and initiatives designed more to get votes than to get results. These programs are creating a crushing tax burden on the Connecticut taxpayer, crowding out funding for vital municipal services and driving cities and towns into deeper and deeper debt. This isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous. That extra $5 million the New Haven wants for education (a drop in the bucket) could be used to buy fire equipment, hire new police officers, pay for roadway maintenance, etc... Instead, the city of New Haven and other municipalities are trading the safety of residents' property and lives for political popularity. Our message to our leaders should be: Cut the pork and focus on priorities. It's amazing what a simple snow storm can reveal...

Hartford Mayor Perez Involved in Corruption Scandals

The Hartford Courant reported last week that a Grand Jury had been appointed to investigate alleged corruption charges of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez and his administration. Apparently, Perez has been under investigation since last February. Three specific corruption allegations are mentioned in the story:

• Giving a lucrative no-bid contract to operate a city-owned parking lot to political supporter. Abraham L. Giles, whose support in the Hartford's North End is considered important to electoral success in the city. Giles has himself been involved in other construction scandals.


• Providing city funds in the amount of $10,000 in 2007 to clean out Giles' private warehouse without repayment until the deal showed up in the news.


• Hiring a city contractor to do $20,000 worth of work on Mayor Perez's bathroom and kitchen. The mayor has been under investigation for this since August, and admits that hiring a city contractor was a "mistake."

So, given all of the allegations, all the Hartford Courant can say is:

"Despite the investigation, Perez decisively won a re-election bid Nov. 6 with a hefty $600,000 war chest and a divided opposition. The investigation played a relatively minor role in the campaign, with few of Perez's challengers capitalizing on the mayor's troubles."

As I recall, a certain Connecticut Governor was forced to resign for less than that. So where is the outrage? Where are the calls for Mayor Perez to resign? Or is there a double standard here since Mayor Perez is a Democrat...

I think there is a double standard. And I think that the liberals at the Hartford Courant, the Democrats in the state, and the Hispanic community in Hartford will be perfectly content to let these little corruption charges blow over. The Capitalist League will be following this case, demanding that Mayor Perez get the same treatment as ex-Governor John Rowland. Hartford deserves better than this, and so does Connecticut. Where's good ole' Mayor Mike when you need him?

Die with Dignity on the Taxpayer's Dime

I was browsing through the Hartford Courant's website at www.courant.com, and this story by Ann Marie Somma caught my eye. The basic gist of the article is that,

"Every year, hundreds of low-income, terminally ill patients insured by the state's Medicaid program have little option but to greet death alone in sterile hospital rooms because the state doesn't offer them a hospice benefit."

Hospice care is a type of palliative care provided at the end of life, that strives to reduce suffering as opposed to finding a cure. The two page Courant article details the necessity of Hospice care, how it would potentially save the state $15.8 million a year if it gave Hospice Care as a state funded health care option, and how State Rep. Claudia Powers, R-Greenwich, has proposed state legislation to include hospice under Medicaid.

Reading the article I had several thoughts. My first reactions was to the media presentation of the story. I mean take a look at the way it begins:

"If it was left to the state of Connecticut, Michael "Hawk" Hector would have died in a hospital room, battling the last ravages of lung cancer.

Instead, Hector died in an easy chair at home, with the love and attention of his family, because the hospice volunteers who cared for him believe he deserved to live out his life with respect and dignity.

Hector was one of the lucky ones."

When a story starts with an anecdotal story like this that tugs at the heart strings, my immediate reaction is to ask "What are they trying to sell me now...?" Typical of the Courant, the article at its heart is just another sob story about the state's poor, how miserable they are, and how taxpayer funded big government is the solution. Perhaps the Courant could sell more newspapers if their liberal agenda was not so obvious and transparent. Ms. Somma, next time stick to the facts and leave out the emotional guilt-mongering.

Now, to the actual substance of the article. Should hospice care be covered by the state? From a purely capitalistic standpoint, no. Healthcare is not a right, it is a product. Corporations and make investments in selling healthcare and their employees work to provide it to you. To demand that you be given free healthcare is to demand that you be given the property of the healthcare companies and the labor of their employees for free. No one has a right to someone else's property or their labor, that is called theft and slavery.

But, David... It's not going to be given for free, it is going to be paid for by the state. So, because the state does such a good job running the schools and building roads, we should let them run our hospitals? Hmmm, I think not. The state does not produce health care like the private industry. It confiscates people's money through taxation, purchases health care for you, and then rations it back to you. What if you are provided more health care than you need (ie. providing 2 doctor's visits a year, when you only really needed 1)? Well, then the government has wasted taxpayer dollars. And what if you need more than the government can provide to you? Then we end up with a situation like this story, where well intentioned state officials propose larger government in order to meet the demands of more and more people who have become dependent on the public dole. Sure expanding care options to include hospice care could save the state an estimated $15.8 million in the short run, but removing government encroachment into the health care industry would reduce state costs even more, and reduce the cost of health care overall. That is my point here, that we should not even be debating whether to include hospice care in state health coverage, since the state should not even be involved in paying for or providing health care.

Now I realize that this program is intended to help the poor, via Medicaid. But why should we think they are entitled to hospice care when everyone else is required to pay for it privately or through their health insurance? A dignified death is possible in a "sterile" hospital as well in hospice care.

This brings me to the usual slippery slope argument. For now it is for "the poor." (Notice also that we will be expanding the state into the health care industry further for only a few hundred people.) This will undoubtedly increase the costs of hospice care for everyone else, leading to an outcry from the middle class to be covered by state funded hospice care. So, politicians will respond with universal hospice benefits. And once the state is funding a type of health care that provides "death with dignity," is it such a far stretch to imagine publicly funded euthanasia coming next?

I'm sure my arguments seem cold and heartless in the face of stories from people like Michael "Hawk" Hector. Having experienced the death of loved ones in hospice care, I do think it is the preferable way to approach the final stages of a terminal illness. However, that does not make it a right, and it does not entitle people to what does not belong to them. If people like State Rep. Claudia Powers are so concerned about the poor receiving a dignified death, let them start private charities to provide hospice care to the poor. In this way the problem could be addressed and people would be able to give money voluntarily. I would happily give to that cause, as opposed to being forced into giving by the state.

Police Encounter Update

First, I did hear back from the West Hartford Police via email about the complaint I made regarding the actions of two of its officers. An investigator is looking into the matter and will be in touch with me.

Secondly, there is a great article by Jennifer Abel in both the online and print versions of the Hartford Advocate. The first paragraph states:

When you hear the phrase “Jewish transportation analyst who visits his mother on weekends,” the words “potentially threatening gangsta-type” probably won’t leap to mind. Maybe that’s because you’re not a cop in West Hartford.

The rest of the article explains the events of the incident as my sister and I experienced them. The print version includes a nice photograph as well. I highly suggest you check it out!

Complaint Regarding an Encounter with Two West Hartford Policemen

I recently sent the following letter to the West Hartford Chief of Police, as well as the members of the West Hartford Town Council, detailing an encounter I had with two West Hartford Policemen:

Dear Police Chief Strillacci,

I am writing to make a formal complaint against West Hartford Police Officer Butkiewitz and one of his colleagues. I believe that my vehicle and I were pulled over without cause. Let me first describe the encounter and then explain what led me to believe that I was pulled over for reasons other than those initially stated by Officer Butkiewitz.

On March 25, 2007, at around 2:00 pm, Officer Butkiewitz pulled over my white 1994 Dodge Shadow on the entrance ramp to I-84 West on South Main Street in West Hartford, CT. My sister and I were at that point headed the see a movie at 2:40pm that was playing in a movie theater in Berlin, CT. I was driving, and she was seated in the front passenger seat. We were both wearing seatbelts and, to my knowledge, obeying all traffic laws. Before being pulled over, I had looked at the police car, which was sitting in the driveway of the Rockledge Golf Course on South Main Street.

Officer Butkiewitz approached my vehicle and I rolled down my window halfway so that I could speak with him. He asked me to roll down my window fully, which I did. I asked him, “What seems to be the problem officer?” He replied by asking me for my license and registration. I handed him my paperwork and asked once more “What seems to be the problem officer?” At that point he said that the object hanging from my rear view mirror was an “obstruction of view.”

Now, I should state that the object hanging from my mirror is the size of a ball point pen. It is a small tube containing a Jewish prayer called “Tefilah Ha-Derech,” which means “Prayer of the Way.” The prayer essentially asks God to protect us on our journeys from all manners of danger: robbers, beasts, etc... Moreover, I have been stopped on another occasion by police, and they did not deem my “Car Mezuzah,” as some have called it, to be an obstruction of view.

(Photo taken 3/11/2007 during an unrelated event and was not included in the letter. Do you see the object hanging from my rear view mirror that was "obstructing my view?")

At this point of the encounter with Officer Butkiewitz, I was very nervous. I do not normally deal with police in the role of a suspect. As a 23 year old, I have had limited encounters with the police and did not know what to expect. I also get nervous when I speak in front of crowds, meet new people, etc… Normal nervousness. However, as a result, my hands were shaking as they were holding on to the steering wheel.

After handing the officer my paperwork, he said “Quick, what is your birthday.” I replied with my birthday. He then asked my sister, sitting in the passenger seat if she had any ID, even a school ID. She responded “No.”

The officer returned to his vehicle, and another police car and a second officer arrived on the scene. Unfortunately, I did not write down the second officer’s name, but his badge number was 251. Officer Butkiewitz returned to my window and asked me to exit the vehicle. As I left the car, I rolled up my window and locked my door. I was instructed to stand behind my car and to put my keys on top of the trunk, which I did.

Officer Butkiewitz then asked me “Do you have any drugs on you?” I was shock ed by the question. I responded “No, I do not.” He then asked “Would you mind if we searched you?” I replied “Officer, I do not consent to a search.” This is consistent with my fourth amendment right “to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The officer seemed surprised at my refusal and asked me why I did not consent to a search. I said “I do not have any drugs on me, I see no reason for you to search me, so Officer, I do not consent to a search.” I must have repeated that line 5 times before Officer Butkiewitz stopped asking me if I could be searched.

At that point, Officer Butkiewitz and his colleague went to speak with each other next to their cars. When they returned, Officer Butkiewitz asked me who was with me in the car. “My sister,” I replied. “How old is she?” asked Officer Butkiewitz. “15,” I replied. “When was she born?” I responded with her date of birth. Officer Butkiewitz then asked me “Do you have any drugs in your car?” To this I replied “No.”

After this series of questions, Officer Butkiewitz returned to his vehicle to process my paperwork. The other officer began to speak with me in a very casual manner, asking me about my job, where I went to school, and talking with me about the Yankees (I have a “#1NYFan” license plate displayed in my rear windshield). I felt that at this point, the other officer was checking to see if my story was consistent. At no point did I lie to the officers. I answered their questions directly and politely.

The other officer then asked me about my nervousness, and said that it could be viewed as suspicious. I told him that I am normally nervous when I get pulled over by the police. At that remark, he asked, “Oh, does that happen a lot?” I said that it did not, which is why I get nervous because I am not used to it happening. The other officer then said that he thought it was strange that I locked my door and asked me if I thought it was unusual. I replied that I do it out of habit, and that I usually lock my doors when I get out of my car. Which I do. Anyone who has ridden with me can attest to the fact that I always ask them to lock their doors when they get out of my car, since I do not have automatic locks. I also lock my doors even in the safest neighborhoods. My car is my property and I would not want anyone to enter it without my permission, as I am sure neither would most other people.

At that point, Officer Butkiewitz returned and handed me a written warning for the “obstruction of view.” He told me that normally it would be a $75 fine. The officers briefly helped clear up some confusion I had had over the registration paperwork, as I had just moved back to Connecticut in late December. I then got back in my car and drove away with my sister.

The entire encounter must have lasted between 20-30 minutes, although I was not really keeping track of time. However, as a result of being pulled over, we were late to the movie in Berlin and had to drive to Plainville to catch a later time.

(This photo of me standing next to my Dodge Shadow was taken 2/21/2006 during unrelated events, and was not included in the letter. And yes, my hair is naturally that curly.)

These are the facts of the encounter. Throughout, I was courteous, direct and honest in my responses, and cooperative while at the same time protecting my rights as a US Citizen.

I believe I was pulled over without cause for the following reasons. First of all, I do not think that Officer Butkiewitz could have even seen the object hanging from my rear view mirror, given his distance from my vehicle. I mean, I hardly see it when I am driving, and it is only a few feet from my face! The fact that Officer Butkiewitz asked me to roll down my window all the way, could have been an attempt to smell the inside of the car, possibly for the scent of marijuana or alcohol. When I initially asked Officer Butkiewitz why I was pulled over, he did not give me an answer. I have been pulled over before, and when I have asked other officers why, they have been quick to give me the reason. After asking Officer Butkiewitz the second time, I saw him scan my vehicle, and then respond with the charge of “obstruction of view.” Moreover, the officer’s questions seemed designed to determine my sobriety or catch me lying. This is why I believe I was not pulled over for an “obstruction of view.”

I believe that instead I was pulled over because Officer Butkiewitz saw me look at his vehicle, observed two young people in the vehicle, and assumed that I was in possession of drugs. I was not in possession of drugs. When Officer Butkiewitz saw that I was nervous, he believed that his initial assumption was correct. This explains the question of “Do you have drugs on your possession?” which seemed to me as if being asked out of the blue!

I believe I was profiled by the West Hartford Police because of my age. This is not something new in West Hartford. I have heard other young people complain about this issue all the time. In fact, I was pulled over by a West Hartford policeman once when I was in high school because he thought he heard me call him an “asshole.” In fact I had my radio on and window open as I drove by him, and did not even say one word to the officer until he pulled me over. And, even if I had used profanity, I believe that the first amendment to the US Constitution provides protections for the freedom of speech. Article 1, Section 4 of the Connecticut State Constitution also states that “Every citizen may freely speak… his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” It was another case of West Hartford Police targeting young people, pulling them over without cause, and using their authority to intimidate and bully.

All of this is part of a national trend that concerns me greatly. The adults leading the Town of West Hartford, as well as our country, continue to regard young people with contempt. They see us as ignorant, unable to care for ourselves, and constantly getting into trouble. As a result, many laws have been proposed and passed restricting the freedom of young people while purporting to protect us from ourselves. Restricting the use of alcohol to those over 21, as opposed to 18, is one example. Another is the requirement for new drivers to have a licensed driver in the car for six months after getting their license. Many car dealerships charge higher rates to customers under 25. The latest example is the proposed regulation of MySpace, which would make it harder for young people to access the site. Meanwhile, schools have become involved in almost every aspect of their students’ lives, from sleeping to eating to sex. This goes beyond the actual charge of schools, which is to instruct students in the 3R’s, and wastes valuable class time. All of this is done “for the children,” with the best of intentions of course, to protect us from ourselves. The movement to restrict the freedom of young people (who cannot vote by the way), is in fact rooted in condescension and a view that children are not to be trusted. Instead of insisting on high standards and personal responsibility, many adults seem to think that we should expect less and less out of today’s youth. They are then surprised when we graduate college and don’t know how to live on our own. In fact, their actions make young people more dependent on adults and make the transition from childhood to adulthood even more difficult. We young people need to make mistakes, it is how we learn. Perhaps some adults have forgotten that as they try to spare us the anguish and worst case scenarios they imagine will befall us. I implore you not to let the West Hartford Police or the Town of West Hartford advance this trend any further.

As a victim of profiling, a former 21-year resident of the Town of West Hartford, and an interested citizen of the State of Connecticut, here is what I request of the West Hartford Police and the Town of West Hartford:

I would appreciate a formal apology from the West Hartford Police Department for the actions of their officers. The West Hartford Police Department does a lot of good work to keep the town safe, and I know that can recognize their mistakes and rise above this incident, and take steps to ensure similar incidents do not happen in the future.

While I understand the need for police officers to enforce the law, they should do so in a manner that does not target specific groups of people, either by age, race, etc… Moreover, the enforcement of law should respect an individual’s constitutional rights and dignity. Police should not twist the law and use it as an excuse to go fishing for other evidence. This is an abuse of authority. ALL citizens of the United States must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Police officers (and all adults for that matter) must change their perspective of young people, and not assume that they are all criminals.

Lastly, I ask that the town consider an ordinance which would require that police officers take the following actions for ALL roadside encounters. Police officers should prepare a card before first exiting their vehicle, on which will be printed the officer’s name and badge number and a clearly written explanation of why the individual was pulled over. The officer will then clearly read and then present the card to the individual first, before participating in any conversation. This will ensure that the initial cause for the police officer pulling over a vehicle is documented. It will also prevent officers from pulling over vehicles without cause and then going on a fishing expedition to find a reason to explain why they pulled over the vehicle in the first place. I believe this law will protect ALL citizens from unreasonable police stops, will help police officers to focus their energies on the real criminals in town, and will improve the relationship between the police and the citizens of the town.

I appreciate your taking the time to read my side of the story, and for your consideration of my requests.

Sincerely,
David Aron

The Heublein Tower: A Connecticut Treasure

High atop Talcott Mountain in Simsbury, CT sits the Heublein Tower. From its observation deck one can survey both the Connecticut and Farmington River valleys. The panoramic views are breathaking, especially in the fall. According to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP):

"The 1,000-foot high promontory provides a splendid view of the Connecticut landscape. On the horizon, Mount Monadnock, eighty miles away in New Hampshire, is discernible. To the northwest, the Berkshires dominate the horizon. Long Island Sound is revealed as a thin blur streak to the south. Those with sharp vision can see an area estimated to be 1,200 square miles."

Modeled after buildings in his native Bavaria, the tower was built by Gilbert Heublein in 1914 as his summer home and retreat. An L-shaped residence was later added around 1925. The 165-foot tower was designed by Smith and Bassette, and constructed of a steel frame of 12-inch girders anchored into the mountain ridge. These and other architectural elements allow the tower to withstand up 100 MPH winds.

According to the CT DEP, and an article on Wikipedia, the tower has been visited by many famous people including Ronald Reagan. In addition, Dwight Eisenhower was asked to run for president at the Heublein Tower.

Currently, the Heublein Tower is part of Talcott Mountain State Park and is open to the public. The Friends of the Heublein Tower, an all-volunteer non-profit organization, works hard to maintain and restore the tower, residence and property. Although it is only accessible via a walking trail, the effort is well worth it (not to mention that the trail itself is quite spectacular).

Thank God for the Capitalistic System, where men like Gilbert Heubein can build such beautiful and amazing structures. The Heublein Tower is definitely one of Connecticut's treasures and I encourage all of you to visit soon (check here for hours) if you have the chance.

Photo from "Pack 96 - Heublein Tower Hike."

And Another Thing... Dictators, Hillary Clinton, and Environmental Whackos

Chavez says Capitalism is the "Road to Hell"
If that's true, then bring on the brimstone, baby!

Hillary Says She is the JFK of 2008
Well, if she wants to follow in John F. Kerry's footsteps... so be it.

But seriously... she means that the same way John F. Kennedy broke barriers by being the first Catholic president, she would break barriers by being the first woman president. A couple thoughts. First, I think it is a little disingenuous for Sen. Clinton to equate herself with JFK. JFK cut taxes, had a confrontational foreign policy, and led America into the Space Age. Sen. Clinton would raise taxes, allow Iraq to descend into sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, and let her environmentalist friends lead us back to the Stone Age. Secondly, how is being a woman a qualification to be president? Should we vote for her just because she is female? Isn't that a bit sexist?

But, I do have to ask the question: Would she really be the first female president? I guess technically. But between Edwards and Clinton, who would make a better female president? I know, I know, cheap political pot-shots...

Return of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Sen. Clinton asserted that the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" was "alive and well." She cited the guilty pleas and conviction of three Republican operatives in New Hampshire for jamming phones during the 2002 election.

Said Sen. Clinton in 1998, amid the Monica Lewinsky Scandal:

"The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast, right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Clearly Sen. Clinton is correct. She is being unfairly maligned by a radical organized faction bent on conspiring against her and her husband. This faction has unjustly tainted her reputation by exaggerating little things like Cattle Futures Contracts, Rose Law Firm-Gennifer Flowers Impropriety, the Travelgate Scandal, the Health Care debacle of the 90's, the Whitewater Scandal, etc... I mean the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has blown everything out of proportion in attempt to destroy her and her husband. And there's nothing she can do to stop them! I should know, since I'm a member of the conspiracy. Bwa-ha-ha-ha...

We Vast Right-Wing Conspirators suggest that the great story consists of the vast resources, the fine tuned organization, and the dirty politics of the Clinton War Room. Now there's a conspiracy!

"Rell's Choice Hastily Made" for new State Supreme Court Chief Justice
I guess Governor Rell was too busy handing out state dollars to care much about who she was nominating to one of the most powerful positions in the state. She might have also figured that it didn't matter, given the veto proof majorities in the State General Assembly.

Gore Wants to Hold an "Earth Concert" Live from the Capitol
Is this an inappropriate use of the capitol grounds? If held outside, probably not. Although according to the story:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced a resolution to use the Capitol grounds as a site for the huge, multi-venue global-warming concert on July 7."

Sounds like it will be a rockin' time with Bon Jovi, Snoop Dog, and the other usual suspects. I wonder what the carbon footprint of this concert will be and whether Al Gore will offset it by buying carbon credits from his company.

Conservationist Uses Wine Bottles to Build Energy-Saving House
An Australian man is building a house out of 13,500 recycled wine bottles. The owner, Peter Little, claims that when the bottles are filled with water, the building will entirely insulated.

"Water is probably, I think one of the miracle building materials of this century which nobody is using," he said.

What do they say about people who live in glass houses? Thank God for the Capitalist System where people like this can use their own money however want to, even if it is ridiculous.

State Legislators Propose Ban on Incandescent Bulbs
Come on guys! You don't have enough to do up there in Hartford between the Budget, Education Spending, Universal Health Care, the Gov. Rell's Railway Initiative, etc... I guess not. Apparently they are going to waste their time and our tax dollars discussing a bill on whether the state should fine retailers selling light bulbs that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection deems as "inefficient incandescent lamps." Check out this quote from Representative Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, who was one of the sponsors of Bill No. 1432, "An Act Concerning Global Warming.":

"I don't see it as frivolous. People are not educated about energy use... We proposed the ban fully knowing we'd be looking at a phase-in. ... In order to get people's attention, you start with a ban."

It's politicians like this that make me sick. Rep. Urban is being predictably arrogant, dictating how others should live their lives based on flimsy claims of Global Warming. And what really annoys me is that she thinks we are all so gullible that we will just accept a state ban on light bulbs if they introduce the bill enough times.

Now I must admit that I was originally in favor of the compact fluorescent light bulbs that the bill seeks to encourage. I liked the soft white light, and the funny shape. That is until I found out that they contain mercury, and in many cases must be disposed of through hazardous waste materials collections. Not to mention that they are more expensive. And, the whole idea that changing a light bulb will save the planet seems utterly ridiculous to me, and frankly I am a bit insulted as a Connecticut citizen that my legislature is taking time to debate this inanity.

Proposal to Generate Revenue for the State

The state is once again considering the reintroduction of tolls on state highways. While I am not opposed to the idea, I would like to make a proposal of my own.

As many of you may know, New Hampshire has virtually no tax on liquor. The New Hampshire State Liquor Commission controls the sale of all alcoholic beverages and maintains numerous state liquor stores. Because it is so cheap, people from other states drive to New Hampshire to load up on booze (I used to be one of them when I lived in Boston). In 2005, the State of New Hampshire took in $11.4 million from the sale of alcohol. The revenues from the sale of liquor help to offset the need for a State Income Tax.

Now, I have thought: How can we translate this concept to Connecticut? I came upon the answer as I was driving between Boston and New York.

As Nutmeggers, we all know how our state serves as a corridor between New York and Boston, Providence, and other points in New England. We are a drive-through state in some senses. All of those cars and trucks need gasoline. So, why doesn't the state sell it to them? Here's my proposal:

The legislature should create a State Fuel Commission (SFC). The SFC will be in charge of purchasing, distributing and selling state gasoline. All of the money collected by the SFC will be maintained in a special fund, which will be used for state and local transportation projects. The Connecticut General Assembly can develop a formula based on roadway mileage, classification, and traffic volumes that will determine how much each town should get, or it can disburse the funds on a case by case basis.

In order to make the plan work, several steps must be taken. First, our gasoline must be considerably cheaper than that of our neighbors. Considering that we will be competing with New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, this should not be too difficult. However, in order to ensure competitive pricing, the legislature should eliminate ALL gasoline taxes and ease restrictions on the types of fuel blends allowed for sale in the state. This will reduce the price of our gasoline by at least $0.45/gallon for gasoline and $0.415/gallon for diesel, giving us at least a $0.20 edge on our neighboring states.

The next step will be to build state operated gas stations at key locations throughout Connecticut. Many highways already have gas stations at rest areas, which the state can purchase. Since the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) already owns the right-of-way for all major Connecticut roads, the SFC will simply have to negotiate with ConnDOT to lease or purchase additional space along interstates and other major corridors. These prime locations should capture the traffic traveling between New York and Boston.

The state must consider whether to take monopolistic control of the state's gasoline industry or not. In New Hampshire for example, the State Liquor Commission has complete control over the state's liquor sales. In the case of monopolistic control, I believe the state would sell gasoline and diesel to private vendors, who would then sell it to the public at a slightly higher price (in order to make a profit). In the case of non-monopolistic control, the legislature may consider prohibiting private gasoline stations from locating within 0.5 to 1 mile of limited access highways. Both scenarios ensure that state gasoline has a competitive advantage by being cheaper or more available to drivers.

Here's why this plan will work. Out-of-state drivers will intentionally wait until they get to Connecticut before filling up their tanks. Thus, we have attracted customers to spend money in the state when they might not have otherwise. And, the more customers that are from out-of -state, the less Nutmeggers will pay, as a proportion. Essentially, we will be collecting revenues from other states.

Beyond the revenue collection itself, the cheaper price of gasoline in Connecticut will make the state more attractive to businesses. That means more jobs, and more tax revenue for the state. As more people move into the state, property values will rise and local tax bases wil expand. This means that local governments will collect more money from property taxes. Goods and services will also cost less, since it will be less expensive to transport them. This may decrease the amount collected in sales tax. However, Connecticut goods and services will be more attractive (especially to those out-of-state). There will also be more goods and services sold in order to meet the demands of new residents and businesses,. Both of these factors may work to increase sales tax receipts. In general though, state and local governments will collect more revenues, and the overall cost of living in Connecticut will decrease.

I pass this idea along in the hopes that Governor Rell or our state legislators are listening, and just to add some original and constructive ideas to the state's political landscape.

Why Should Students Bother to Go Home?

A March 12, 2007 Story by Daniela Altimari in the Hartford Courant examines efforts in Connecticut to address the fact that students aren't getting enough sleep. The story gives the example of two parents whose children wake up "groggy, cranky and late for preschool," because they demand to sleep in their parents' beds. Says Erin Harrigan, mother of 3-year old Timothy:

"'He'll fight and I'll cave, I know that's not the right thing to do.'

Harrigan said she plans to begin trying out some of [Middlesex Hospital family support worker Cindy] Walden's tips soon. 'I've been dealing with this for two years, ever since he got out of the crib," she said, shaking her head.'"

Marlena Parker, mother of 5-year old Nicholas admitted:

'"It's been easier to let him sleep in my room... but now we are in a rut, and he won't sleep in his own bed."

So what is being done to address the fact that these and other parents don't have to backbone to tell their children "no"?

"...The Middletown School Readiness Council recently held a workshop on bedtime routines for preschoolers. Educators and health care providers say it's important for parents to set good sleep patterns early, even before a child begins school."

"'A lot of teachers are seeing kids come to school exhausted and cranky,' said workshop leader Cindy Walden, a family support worker at the Middlesex Hospital Family Advocacy Program. 'Schools have already gotten on board by making sure kids have a good breakfast. Now they are starting to say `What else is going on?'"

Or, in other words, What else are those dead-beat parents doing to abuse their children and get in the way of what we educators are trying to do? I took a class on public education policy at Boston University. Professor Christine H. Rossell maintained that schools have about a 15-20% influence on how children grow up. Most of the remaining influence belongs to parents and family members. It seems to me, though, that these educators think they don't have enough control over students and are actively seeking to get more, at the expense of parents.

This highlights a major problem with public educators and school administrators. They view themselves as trained professionals who know how to better raise everyone else's children. Now, because some parents make bad decisions (as they have for centuries), government employees are taking the opportunity to examine all aspects of parental action from supervising homework, to diet and exercise, to sleep. The question is: if parents do not know how to raise their own children, why should students ever go home? Drop them off at age 4 at your local state-run preschool (Thanks a lot, Gov. Rell) and let the government do the rest.

This elitism by public educators, and the public's willingness to abdicate their responsibilities in deference to the "professionals," is going to have profound effects that will be felt for generations.

• Children will become even more disconnected from family life, father and mother role models, and any concept of life beyond the state (private life).
• Since public schools cannot even mention the R-word (Religion), children will grow up without any religious background, without any concrete moral system, and no sense that there is anything greater than them (besides the state). And, as Chesterton said, "Those who do not believe in something will believe in anything."
  
• A generation of children will be raised to not question the state and to see government control of their lives as the norm.
• The costs of increased government control over children will overwhelm local budgets, and eventually bankrupt towns, states, and taxpayers.

How can we fight back? Several ways.

First: Question Authority. This the big one. Don't accept what the "professionals" say at face value. Trust your natural parenting instincts, and stand your ground when it come to raising YOUR children.

Second: Get involved with your childrens' education. Ask them what they did in school. Look at their assignments. Visit the school and ask to see the curriculum. Speak with the teacher. One of the biggest fears of these public educators is that people will see what is going on in schools today. Take the example of Francisco Acevedo, who was arrested for video taping a melee between a school "cop" and a student.

Third: Elect people who will respect parental rights and beat back the unelected bureaucracy from taking away your rights.

Lastly: If you are able to, homeschool or send your children to private school. For more information on your rights as a parent to educate in freedom, check out National Home Education Legal Defense.

Together we can fight back against the erosion of our rights as parents (and future parents).

Dissecting Universal Health Care

According to a 3/6/2007 story in the Hartford Courant, Doctors testified on Capital Hill this Tuesday against a proposed 3% income tax on doctors. The new tax is part of a $900 million plan for universal health care proposed by a "coalition of Democratic lawmakers." The Insurance and Real Estate Committee actually discussed 4 proposed plans for Health Care, all of them purporting to ensure that Connecticut residents have "adequate" and affordable" health care. Matthew Katz, speaking on behalf of the Connecticut State Medical Society (CSMS), told the Insurance and Real Estate Committee that:

"(This bill) will guarantee that those physicians contemplating early retirement will go ahead and do it - while also turning more of the graduates of our two fine medical schools away from the state where they trained,"

The President of CSMS, Dr. Michael Deren, has posted the following statement on the organization's website:

"The Connecticut State Medical Society appreciates the constructive suggestions that have emerged in several bills aimed at increasing access to quality medical care for patients across our state. We are troubled, however, by any proposal that adds more burdens for physicians caring for their patients. The proposed provider tax is really another barrier to health care. It adds more costs to small businesses – which is what almost 90% of Connecticut physicians’ offices are – without the funding to make up the difference. In essence, it penalizes your pediatrician, your family physician and even your oncologist for caring for you. Looking forward, we will continue to work with lawmakers and support legislation that makes quality medical care available to all Connecticut residents."

A newspaper ad to run in the Hartford Courant, states their further objections.

Mr. Katz and Dr. Deren are absolutely right. But, these are the costs of universal health care. This is the price of health care "as a right." The push for universal health care is nothing but a scam, and will HURT real people, like you and me. Here's why:

Government run universal health care will not be more accessible. It will be rationed. Each year the government will determine how much is spent on providing health care to its citizens. That figure represents how much health care will be produced in the state. If more health care is required to meet the wants of the citizens, then tough cookies. The citizens will have to supplement their public plans with private insurance. Since state funds are always limited, can we ever imagine a situation where citizens would receive ALL the health care they want? No, since many of our wants are beyond our means. And since the government derives its means from us, there is no way that the state can provide for all of our health care wants. Therefore, the government will only provide what it thinks you need. But what about the man or woman who will have to wait months for a doctor's appointment? What about the person who does not receive the necessary care because the state didn't think they "needed" it? Why don't we determine what we need, and if we can afford it, also get what we want? Personally, I don't think I really need anything beyond catastrophic health care coverage. Should I be forced by the government to receive more?

Universal health care will not lower health care costs, but increase them. Just take government run education as an example. According to the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) , the State of Connecticut spent an average of $11,057 per student on education in 2002 (only $7,052 of which was for instruction). The NCES also reported that the average U.S. private school tuition for 1999-2000 was $4,700. The difference between the two figures is quite significant. Government run education has led to a hypertaxed school-ocracy, where school boards have effectively replaced town councils in determining local budgets. And don't forget, we are having our state income taxes raised this year in order to pay for more education funding. Similarly, government run health care will increase the costs of health care. Since the consumers of health care will not see the costs, they will demand as much "free" stuff as they can. And politicians, eager to curry favor with the voters, will do their best to give it to them, raising as many taxes as are necessary to do it. There will be no check on what consumers can afford, only a blank check for health care financed on the backs of the taxpayers. So all universal health care will do is add a hypertaxed hospital-ocracy to our existing school-ocracy, with hospital boards demanding more and more funding every year. People will be hurt by universal health care, as their personal incomes are drained away by higher and higher taxes. Why not keep health care affordable? Why not keep it private?

Let's also not forget the waste and bureaucracy inherent in government control. I often joke that the government does such a good job running the DMV and the schools... let's put them in charge of the hospitals. Imagine the forms and paperwork necessary to see a doctor, or to select one as your primary care physician. And with paperwork, there will be those who get lost in the shuffle. I can see the stories now about people waiting for needed surgery, who were delayed because their application for care sat on the desk of a bureaucrat. Universal health care will lead to an unresponsive system, where you are just another ID number in the data banks.

The whole premise of universal health care itself is faulty. Many people maintain that it is a right. We are all entitled to health care by virtue of our existence, since we could die without it. But, we would die without food, and even faster! So should the government take over the food industry and determine how much we should eat? A Universal Food Program? (We'd better watch out, because that's what the anti-obesity movement is leading to). Most people would say no. You cannot have a right "to" something, only a right to "do" something. Think of it this way: Do I have a right to umbrellas? Or a right to chocolate chip cookies? I may find these items very necessary to my being, but do I have a right to them? No. I have a right to obtain them from others with their consent, but I do not have a right to force others to give me umbrellas and cookies. Look at some of our basic constitutional rights. We have a right to speak, a right to publish, a right to assemble, and a right to bear arms. We do not have a right to be given microphones, printing machines, auditoriums, or guns. The constitution guarantees us freedom from government restriction of these rights. The instruments with which we choose to exercise those rights are our own responsibility. Health care is not a right; it is a service that makes our life more comfortable. The whole premise of universal health care is that of a spoiled child saying "I want," without any regard for costs or consequences. It is an entitlement mentality that confuses comforts with rights and demands that others pay for them.

I applaud the Connecticut State Medical Society for opposing the potential tax increases. I urge them to go a step further and oppose universal health care, or any further government encroachment into the health care sector. Let's work together to send a message to state legislators that Connecticut needs a private system of health care, not another government takeover.

Weekly Poll Results - 3/3/2007

What are your thoughts on the state's death penalty?

Some criminals cannot be reformed and deserve the death penalty for their crimes.
56% - 5 votes

The death penalty serves as a deterrent against serious crimes.
0% - 0 votes

The issue is very complex. The state should put a moratorium on the death penalty and study its effectiveness.
22% - 2 votes

The death penalty is too costly to the state. Send criminals to prison instead.
0% - 0 votes

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Send criminals prison instead.
22% - 2 votes

The death penalty is immoral. Send criminals to prison instead.
0% - 0 votes

I don't know/Not enough information.
0% - 0 votes

Still Not Enough

Why is Governor Rell being such a tightfisted killjoy? That’s the thrust of a full two page article by Andy Bromage and Betsy Yagla published in New Haven Advocate this week. Apparently, Governor Rell is cutting the state’s “measly” $9 million arts budget to $5 million. Bromage and Tagla report:

“…the first-year hit to some of the state’s most successful arts and tourism institutions would be staggering: Arts and Ideas would lose $1 million; Stamford Center for the Arts, $1.1 million; Connecticut Humanities Council, $2.1 million; the Arts Council of Greater New Haven, $125,000; the Freedom Schooner Amistad, $90,000. There are a dozen more examples.”

Beyond criticizing the cuts, opponents of the Governor’s plans say that the cuts are too sudden. Jennifer Aniskovich, who is actually the Governor’s Culture and Tourism Commissioner, said:

“To completely eliminate their funding in one year is irresponsible and will lead to the de-stablization of vital arts organizations…”

Michael Cicchetti, Deputy Secretary of the Governor’s Budget Office, responded to the criticism by saying:

“…arts earmarks are now given out with no checks on how the money is used. The new system ensures an open and transparent process, where a portion of state funds gets dedicated to smaller organizations, and ensures the money is kept track of… ‘It’s a question of trying to open it up. Giving institutions a year or two is sufficient for their needs. All of them will register a complaint.’”

Isn’t that what we want? Wouldn’t we like to know where our tax money is being spent? Unchecked government spending on the arts has led to such thought provoking classics as "Piss Christ", "The Holy Virgin Mary" covered with dung, and "The Gates" in Central Park in NYC. Now these artists are certainly free to create whatever they want, but are these works so important to our society that we must all be forced to pay for them? Yes, artists have a right to free expression, but don’t I have a right to withhold my fiancial support from works and events I don’t like?

Yet apparently that’s not the worst part of the Governor’s budget:

"Rell wants to eliminate arts earmarks in favor of a competitive grant process…"

"Nineteen arts and tourism groups that get yearly earmarks would lose their largesse in July and instead be forced to compete for a total $10 million in state arts funding."

"Arts and Ideas [a 17-day art festival]… would be tossed into competition for grants with every other arts group in the state."

Yes. Art groups would actually have to compete. Instead of being funded by the public, they would have to debase their work by begging for charity or even worse… selling it. No, no that won’t do at all. These sophisticated visionaries are entitled to public money, and are right to demand it from us simple folk because of their genius. Sarcasm aside though, it seems to me that a little capitalism is exactly what the artistic community needs. People do not attend museums or art festivals in mass numbers because their subject matter is either boring, irrelevant or talentless. Encouraging art groups to compete for funding would lead to arts and events that are innovative and receive more public interest. This seems to be exactly what the Governor’s intentions are:

“[The new system was] juried by her Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism, in part to level the playing field for smaller groups with less clout at the Capitol… Of the $10 million total, $6 million will go to large organizations with budgets over $1 million and $4 million will go to smaller groups.”

Bravo. A little accountability and competition are exactly what we need. I have been critical of many other portions of Governor Rell’s budget, but it sounds like she’s got it right on this issue. However, many would disagree. Check out this little gem from the end of the article:

“Bitsie Clark a New Haven alderwoman and longtime head of the Arts Council answered the question this way:

‘Rowland was a crook, but there was never a guy who gave money to the arts like he did. The arts prospered under him. We wouldn’t have been able to run the festival if it hadn’t been for Rowland. And we thought Rell might look like that.’

But no. Spreading the love may mean spreading the state’s arts money too thin.”

What a hoot! Now she’s worse than Governor Rowland! Well folks, that’s the price of endless education funding and universal health care. We all have to make sacrifices. After all, we can’t have our cake and eat it too (unless we take it from our neighbors).

Simply put, artists are not entitled to endless public dollars. They must show that their art is actually what the public wants, not what they think the public should want. Moreover, in order to receive taxpayer dollars, their art should be in the public interest and not possible without private support. Thank you to Governor Rell for showing at least a tiny bit of fiscal restraint in this year’s budget.

(Hugh Elton's Illustration appears with the article in the print version of the New Haven Advocate. Hugh Elton is a staff writer for the New Haven Advocate.)

Never Enough

We are never doing enough are we? More precisely, our government is never doing enough.

Check out this story from the Hartford Courant. According to reporter Joel Lang, the Clean Water Investment Coalition has written off Governor Jodi Rell's proposed $140 million for water-related public works projects as "too small."

"One of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's major budget initiatives - to keep Connecticut waters free of pollution - is well-intentioned but too small by half, an alliance of environmental, municipal and economic interests declared Tuesday.

The Clean Water Investment Coalition said the state needs to allocate about $300 million over the next two years to water-related public works projects, the full amount requested by Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy - compared with the $140 million Rell has proposed."

Come on guys! Give the Governor a break! She just announced she wants to raise taxes to pay for all of this additional state spending and it's not enough, you still want her to spend more! I refer you to the