CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Sharkey Admits Mistakes Were Made In Balancing Budget

by | Nov 5, 2015 4:00pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Business, Economic Development, The Economy, Energy, Jobs, Labor, Nonprofits, State Budget, Special Session, Taxes, State Capitol

Christine Stuart photo House Speaker Brendan Sharkey is leaning on the business community for comprehensive and specific recommendations about how to balance the budget in order to avoid the kind of “bad decisions” that get made when lawmakers are left to their own devices.

Sharkey asked members of the Commission on Economic Competiveness on Thursday for “real time input” as he works with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration to close a $350-370 million mid-year budget shortfall. He would like commission members to be “on call” as advisors throughout negotiations, which are likely to continue until a special session is held in mid-December.

Sharkey said his request is the result of lessons learned after lawmakers produced parts of a revenue package that were “not well thought out” and “fully vetted” in their rush to come up with a balanced budget at the end of the General Assembly’s regular session in June.

That two-year, $40.3 billion budget with nearly $2 billion in tax increases was negotiated behind closed doors by Democrats and narrowly approved by the General Assembly on June 3. After a little more than a week of vociferous opposition from the business community, Malloy announced plans to roll back some of the most objectionable taxes. Budget implementation language passed in special session at the end of June ultimately eliminated an increase in the data processing tax and delaying the unitary reporting requirement until Jan. 1, 2016. Lowering the overall two-year tax increase to about $1.3 billion.

“When we were putting the budget together at the beginning of June, decisions were being made in a context that oftentimes happens in this building where legislative leaders and the administration are trying to complete the budget and get to a number that puts us in balance,” Sharkey said. “Oftentimes, that is not a process that is conducive to a) transparency but b) good decision making.”

The extent of the fallout from that decision-making is still unclear as the state waits to see what is going to happen with General Electric, which is headquartered in Fairfield but has expressed interest in leaving the state. The company formed a relocation committee to look at its options after learning in June exactly what was in the initial revenue package.

Sharkey said the commission sitting before him on Thursday is an acknowledgement that “we took a giant step backward, to be frank, in June with the budget that we produced and I want to avoid that mistake from happening again.”

The 13-person commission was created by statute this year in the same special session during which lawmakers revised the revenue package businesses said was so harmful to the state’s economic competitiveness.

The committee is co-chaired by state Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, and Joe McGee, vice president of public policy and programs at The Business Council of Fairfield County. It includes members representing state, business, labor and academic interests. 

The group is tasked with examining how Connecticut’s policies, including those pertaining to taxes and regulations, impact businesses in the state.

Connecticut Business & Industry Association President and CEO Joe Brennan, a member of the commission, thanked Sharkey for creating the group and reaching out for their advice.

“I think it’s important to note it’s not a commission on business competitiveness but a commission on economic competitiveness, because that shows that it goes hopefully to the benefit of everybody in the state: not just the business community but employees of companies, those who rely on state benefits for their existence, (and) so many of the other investments the state needs to make,” Brennan said.

The business advocate called for “dispassionate discussion” not only on tax policy, but on far-reaching issues like transportation and energy.

Sharkey agreed with the need for that kind of dispassionate viewpoint so that decisions are based on a comprehensive, thoughtful approach instead of “who’s screaming the loudest.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

(76) Archived Comments

posted by: Biff Winnetka | November 5, 2015  4:51pm

“Mistakes Were Made”


Accountability is like Kryptonite to the Progs.

I hope the Progs watched what happened yesterday in Virgina and Kentucky State elections.

posted by: Noteworthy | November 5, 2015  5:09pm

The Sharkey Shuffle Notes:

1. This is Sharkey’s budget - he’s House Speaker. He and Sen. Martin Looney excluded all the experts, excluded the Republicans - and they drew up their own budget.

2. It’s also Malloy’s budget. Malloy put forward an unbalanced, D.A. budget that made no sense.

3. Then Malloy, Looney and Sharkey and a few other Demos all got together, for a second time, behind closed doors, in secret and hatched this bastard of a budget.

4. It broke tax promises, further eroded trust in government and confidence that the nitwits who run this government have a clue about what they are doing.

5. It is insulting to think that these people have to ask others to help them balance what they have thrown into chaos - and are doing it “so we don’t make this mistake again.”

6. How many times to you have to learn the same lesson?

7. Get out a dictionary and learn what the meaning of “transparency” is and forget ever using the word again. Then look up “no.” Practice saying it in 10 languages because this budget is out of whack because nobody says no and means it.

posted by: LE 2015 | November 5, 2015  5:10pm

At least the dems are starting to realize they do not know what they are doing

posted by: UConnHoop | November 5, 2015  5:37pm

Wait, in June, according to Malloy, his mouthpieces and the Dems, the current budget was considered a masterpiece.  I’m confused.  Are the Dems now saying that wasn’t true?  If so, this is shocking news.  Shocking, I tell ya.

posted by: UpsideDown | November 5, 2015  5:58pm

Sharkey admits mistakes were made. They were expensive mistakes. Fortunately nobody died as far as we know because of them.  Glad this guy isn’t an engineer building bridges or things where peoples lives are at stake. It’s high time we elect people who can THINK and PLAN instead of react.

posted by: Markrose | November 5, 2015  6:13pm

I believe that this commission is only looking at half the problem.  The state legislature needs to look at the whole system of taxation from business to property.  People are still leaving the state faster than they are moving in and one of the major reasons is over taxation.  A perfect example is the taxation of income of those who live out of state but spend more than 2 weeks working at a corporate headquarters located in CT.  Is the state that desperate for income?

In addition, the Speakers lame excuse that these things happens during the rush of closing the session.  Unbelievable,  thoughtful deliberation is what we expect to happen.  But when budget talks exclude the opposing party how can thoughtful deliberation take place.  Each party needs to be represented so that all taxpayers are represented. 

The governor has proposed eliminating 500 position of non union employees by attrition.  Perhaps the Speaker and Minority leader need to look at eliminating unionized positions.  Also longevity raises for unionized employees need to be eliminated.  The governor’s proposal for non unionized employees would potentially save 1 million dollars perhaps sn equal savings could be realized from the union ranks.

Finally all aspects of the budget need to be looked through for savings, except for those programs to help the mentally ill as those programs have been taking hits for tears. 

It has been said by the governor that you can not cut your way out of this problem, I say look deep because the tax increases have not done the job. 

While the recent volitility in the stock market is to blame, according to the governor, for the 103 million deficit the market has basically recovered and still the money is not there, so what is the real story?

posted by: rpk31 | November 5, 2015  6:43pm

In June, it was a transformational budget that would be a boon to every resident in the state. Now he’s GOB “I’ve made a huge mistake” Bluth. And only 2 days after the election! Atleast Malloy had the patience to wait a week after Election Day last year to tell us he lied to our faces for months.

posted by: Janster57 | November 5, 2015  8:33pm

For these smug and insulting Democrats to admit error and seek advice from the people they openly scorned is incredible. Assume that they know something we don’t and that far worse news is coming down the pike. Otherwise they’d still be telling everyone to go to hell.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | November 5, 2015  9:08pm

In the final 15 minutes of the legislative session, after using a point of parliamentary privilege to shut down senator Linares, “It is one of the best budgets that I have encountered in my 35 years in the General Assembly,’’ said Looney, who crafted much of it. (from the courant)

Will new haven ever vote this joker out?


posted by: State_of_Connecticut_Ombudsman | November 5, 2015  9:30pm

I don’t typically agree with House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, but on this topic he’s right, there were mistakes.  The biggest being House Speaker Brendan Sharkey was a key influence and author of this fiscal attack against the primary taxpayers in the State of Connecticut.

posted by: Fisherman | November 5, 2015  10:28pm

You have got to be kidding me. Sharkey’s comments are the first “cracks in the foundation”.

You can bet the Dem’s got the word from Immelt. GE is leaving, and others will follow.

posted by: Politijoe | November 5, 2015  10:37pm


@Markrose: I agree with your statement “The state legislature needs to look at the whole system of taxation from business to property”...... You’re correct, both federal and state budgets require a comprehensive solution that includes increased corporate revenues and spending cuts.

However, you cited that “People are leaving the state and one of the major reasons is over taxation”........ The data paints a different picture. For instance a 2014 Gallup and Pew poll surveyed residents who said it is at least somewhat likely they will move. The biggest factor these residents gave for planning to move is for work or business reasons—the 50-state average is 31%. This is followed by family or other social reasons (19%), weather or location (11%), and then seeking a better quality of life or change (9%). The cost of living is a greater relative factor for residents in Connecticut

With regards to spending versus cuts you mentioned: “I say look deep because the tax increases have not done the job”...... The reality just the opposite. Ct like most state budgets and the nation are operating on significantly less revenues from wealthy corporations and individuals. This shortfall in federal taxation revenues directly impacts state infrastructure, education, transportation and healthcare services. Therefore, the solution isn’t less taxation for wealthy corporations and individuals, it is expecting them to contribute at least the same ratio as the average middle class worker.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 6, 2015  1:36am

Politjoe agrees with Mark Rose about federal budget requiring a comprehensive solution. The only problem with that is, MarkRose never referred to the federal government. PJ is merely trying to redirect this conversation to his favorite subject and viewpoint.

He then states “the solution isn’t less taxation for wealthy corporations and individuals, it is expecting them to contribute at least the same ratio as the average middle class worker”, when according to his previous posts he believes that the top earners should be paying 90% tax rates - a ratio that does NOT represent the average middle class tax rate.

posted by: Markrose | November 6, 2015  4:07am

Politijoe, I stand corrected, however over taxation may not be a major reason, but it is a factor taken into account.  This does not however change the fact that CT still continues to loose population and has since the early 1990’s if the figures released by the state are true.  I never mentioned the federal budget because there has not been one for 8 years, everything is done by CR. 

Additionally, when governments whether state or federal pass budgets with known deficits the answer is not always raise taxes on the wealthy or business.  When you raise taxes on business who winds up paying the taxes, the consumer because the business merely passes on the increase to the consumer in order to maintain profits.

The State needs to roll back the majority of the last round of increases and look very hard at cutting spending, however it can not only be at the end dispense of the truly needy, such as the mentally ill and the disabled.  Perhaps the state needs to look at the amount of property it owns but does not use, still pays leases on but does not use.  Like I said the tax increases have not worked, because the deficits continue so there has to be spending cuts.

posted by: justsayin | November 6, 2015  4:56am

Too late for this phony act. You beat your chest, claimed victory and shamed those who opposed. You want to step up on this issue, then step out, resign. That will be a real first step.

posted by: Politijoe | November 6, 2015  7:56am


@Truth: Unfortunately there appears to be a gap in your comprehension. For instance you stated “MarkRose never referred to the federal government. PJ is merely trying to redirect this conversation to his favorite subject and viewpoint”....... The reality is one simply cannot have a serious dialog regarding state budgets without discussing federal budgets. The two are symbiotically tied. On average the Feds contribute about 30% to individual state budgets. Therefore, it would be incomplete to not address this crucial component.

Truth you then went on to state “according to Politijoe’s previous posts he believes that the top earners should be paying 90% tax rates - a ratio that does NOT represent the average middle class tax rate.”........ Problem again is your comprehension. I have not advocated for 90% marginal tax rates. I illustrated that marginal tax rates were once as high as 90% for the wealthiest earners, although the effective rates were then closer to about 40% a tax ratio that is far more closely aligned with the middleclass.

posted by: Noteworthy | November 6, 2015  9:46am

Hello? Houston? We have a problem. After reading this story three times, I laugh more each time. Looney loving the budget; Sharkey embracing it and now stating the obvious - wow - It’s a comedy.

posted by: oldtimer | November 6, 2015  10:28am

An infamous quotation from a News Junkie contributor… “I say look deep because the tax increases have not done the job”... The result of increasing taxes always eludes the Socialists. They believe the citizenry is inert and will blindly accept government tyranny. Their problem is the citizenry will always act to save their properties. One of the unintended consequences of their tax increases is that jobs are lost and the income gap between “rich” and “poor” widens. Then they chase their tails pining for laws and regulations to make things “fair”... As Albert Einstein so eloquently stated, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”... or… “two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe”...

posted by: art vandelay | November 6, 2015  11:15am

art vandelay

@Ombudsman, New Haven has presented to Connecticut 3 of the most powerful Marxist/Socialist/Progressive Radical Legislators. The three have done more damage to this state than any other Democrat. Two of them Harp & Walker controlled the Appropriations Committee for years.  Looney has been the most destructive.

If New Haven Democrats wake up and deny Looney & Walker their party’s nomination, they will only be replaced by even more hard core leftists.  The only relief would be that the new legislators would not be granted leadership positions.  Again any leadership position will be filled by another hard core leftist. 

Beth Bye’s appointment to the Appropriations Committee replacing Toni Harp is a perfect case in point.
The Democrat Party will go to no ends to assure Committee Chairs are filled by Democrats who promote the party’s Socialist platform.

posted by: Politijoe | November 6, 2015  4:38pm


@Oldtimer: I’m once again confused with your circular logic regarding fair taxation. You stated that “Socialist believe the citizenry is inert and will blindly accept government tyranny.”….. How in your mind does adequate taxation equate to government tyranny? And again I have to ask, how do you define “Socialists”?

You go on to state “One of the unintended consequences of tax increases is that jobs are lost and the gap between rich and poor widens.” …… I’m not sure what alternate reality you may be operating from, however the global black market of off-shoring wealth and the international system of multi-national corporate tax evasion has a direct causation to wealth inequality. This has been so well established and is so well understood, by so many economists, that only a few crackpot ideologues within a paranoid sub-culture define it as government tyranny. The corporate tax-shell industry costs the global economy $25-30 TRILLION dollars annually. In the US alone it costs American taxpayers over $80 billion dollars a year. The result is our federal budget is not financially adequate to support our infrastructure, healthcare, transportation, education, military and social safety net. Subsequently, state budgets are also significantly impacted by corporate tax evasion. In Connecticut’s case, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world only contributed $250 towards its state tax obligations. This dereliction of duty has consequences that impact everyone else, particularly the middle-class and working poor, who have to bear an ever-increasing burden. Americans who embrace the idea that fair taxation is little more than government extortion are part of the problem. This half-baked theory is the result of forty years of failed policies that have been influenced and written by the very same corporations who have peddled these self-destructive notions to a constituency that is easily swayed by patriotic rhetoric and false exceptionalism.

Its time we demand the wealthiest Americans and corporations contribute their fair share in tax revenues. Behind this we must remove private money from public policies and demand campaign reform that relies on publicly funded campaigns. We need to elect serious leaders, not reality stars, religious extremists, anti-science zealots or established candidates who carry water for the corporations. We simply cannot solve 21st century problems with a 19th century form of government.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | November 6, 2015  6:21pm

Put back that GE CEO tax that you guys cut out after Morning Joe Scarborough complained.

posted by: Politijoe | November 6, 2015  7:36pm


@Markrose: I agree, although taxation is not the major reason it remains a factor and the state is losing more population than it is gaining, true. However, there are a few anti-government conservative types who, in spite of the facts, have a tendency to fear monger and misinform, particularly when it comes to taxation. Therefore, it’s refreshing to engage in a dialog with fundamental agreement.

I also agree with you regarding the federal budget. Although Obama has submitted a budget each year, congress has the ultimate responsibility to pass a budget and instead we are relying on continuing resolutions. However, I would tend to disagree with your sentiments that when taxes are raised, business merely passes on the increase to the consumer in order to maintain profits. Wealthy individuals and corporations have an obligation to contribute their fair share towards the nations taxes. Corporate welfare, in many cases tax breaks and subsidies, cost Americans more than $80 billion dollars annually. As previously mentioned, GE, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world, only contributed $250 towards state tax obligations. They alone have benefited from over $300 million in corporate welfare benefits in the last decade. To clarify, this isn’t about raising taxes on the corner deli owner or the mom and pop hardware store or the sole proprietor hair salon. This is about the corporate offshore tax industry that cost the global economy $25-30 TRILLION and creates levels of wealth inequality not seen since the 19th century. Again, federal dollars are intricately tied to state budgets, therefore we have to address the underlying issue of federal revenues and spending. An enormous component to the revenue equation is the significant decrease in corporate tax contributions over the last couple of decades. On both the federal and state level we need to increase revenues from the wealthiest individuals and corporations to pre-Reagan era levels and reduce spending. This is not a spending problem -it’s a math problem. The challenge is where to cut and how much. Obviously protecting our most venerable citizens is a priority but relying completely on eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, the size of government or government property would never begin to address the spending required to balance a state budget gap of 350 million dollars. This requires both a revenue and spending solution

posted by: oldtimer | November 6, 2015  8:22pm

“... however the global black market of off shoring wealth and the international system of multi national corporate tax evasion has a direct causation to wealth inequality.”... Let’s see, the United States has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Connecticut ranks near the bottom of business friendly states. Put the two together, along with the fact that business, like people are fluid, not inert, and you have taken trillions of dollars out of the U.S. and state economies. The end result… wealth inequality! Now, here’s the rub… The Socialist solution is to further business regulation and raise taxes to make things “fair”. Conservatives/Capitalists prefer to lower taxes and regulations, to entice businesses to move back to our country, create jobs and spend their money here… We’re experiencing the results of high taxes and regulations, yet the Socialists ignore Conservatives and continue to prove Einstein to be correct…

posted by: Markrose | November 6, 2015  8:38pm

PJ, it is a well established fact that businesses at all levels will pass most if not all increases in taxes or operating expenses onto to,the consumer.  This is cliche but it is true businesses are in business to make money.

I agree we need to end corporate welfare and have Congress pass legislation to do away with political contributions from Super PACS and groups like citizens United to that will stand the test before the Supreme Court.

There is a lot that needs to be done to bring economic stability and growth back to this country, however the fix is not as simple as raising taxes on the wealthy.  It also is not as simple as cutting spending at least on the federal level.  In CT we have had 2 years of multi million tax increases and the problems have continued to grow, so a very careful and in depth look at spending is necessary. 

people clamour for large corporations to pay their fair share and I agree that they should. I think the problem and disagreement comes in determining the percentage.

posted by: art vandelay | November 6, 2015  9:01pm

art vandelay

I’m terribly sorry to say this but you remind me so much of an old 78 record that keeps skipping and skipping over and over again.

Every thing wrong with this economy relates to corporate greed and people not paying their “fair share”.  Give it up.  There are more important issues facing this nation. The Muslim invasion of Europe and to a major extent the United States is one that nobody except Michael Savage is addressing. I’m really tired of your diatribe. Move on!

posted by: Spinoza | November 6, 2015  10:05pm

I live in Norwalk. The state last month granted $1.5 million to our local municipal golf course for improvements. WTF? They are just pissing away money like it’s a giant bucket of candy to be handed out. I figure this kind of profligacy is repeated hundreds, if not thousands, of times throughout the state. Maybe the state government needs to get out of the business of handing out goodies? As a taxpayer who actually had to pay for this stuff, I am not happy.

posted by: LE 2015 | November 6, 2015  11:10pm

The dems for 40 years have raised taxes and given the money to the unions. We now have 40 billion in unfunded liabilities. Our roads and bridges are falling apart. The dems now want to raise taxes again. We are taking in less revenue while we have more people working. This is because we have allowed the dems to drive out the well paying jobs and replaced them with low paying jobs. This all in the name of making business pay their fair share. Well pretty soon GE will be creating jobs some where else. Thank you dems

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 7, 2015  9:47am

politjoe: my post and words stand. Your posts speak for themselves. Resorting to outright lying and trying to misdirect my statements by attacking my ability to comprehend should suffice as the final ‘nail’ in your coffin to those of us who have been subjected to your condescension.

Your agreement with something markrose DIDN’T say is evidenced in these posts, yet you choose not to acknowledge it. Your memory needs refreshing about the 90% figure, extracted from you after dozens of requests for a hard number.

posted by: oldtimer | November 7, 2015  10:09am

I’m asked to define “Socialism”... let’s start by defining what our friends on the other side are not… Democratic, a democracy is a system of government where all the people are involved in making decisions. In our state, democrats have shut other parties out for decades, most recently on budget issues. Nationally, leaders like Reid and Pelosi have done likewise, Obamacare being a prime example… Liberals, liberlism is a political philosophy based on ideas of free will and equality. Open to an array of views like freedom of speech, religion, press and markets. Those who espouse to liberalism are insulting, demeaning and intolerant of any views but their own… Progressives, progressivism is a political philosophy based on ideas of advancement in science, technology and economic development. Yet, “global warming”, now called “climate change”, is based on junk science and doctored “records”. Those who call themselves progressive believe that economic development means taxing “the rich” to death… Now for Socialism. Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Everything that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have done since the death of JFK has worked towards creating a socialist state… That’s why I refer to many here as Socialists. It’s not meant to be mean or nasty, it simply identifies how your beliefs differ from mine…

posted by: oldtimer | November 7, 2015  10:46am

Now that I’ve defined “Socialism”, perhaps our friends on the other side will define, “The Rich”... we’ve been waiting an awful long time for them to do so…

posted by: Social Butterfly | November 7, 2015  12:15pm

@Politijoe:  You keep going round and round with your gig on corporate welfare. Have you found the purpose of your madness rewarding to you? Perhaps it’s time to let go of a sinking balloon while you can still tread water.

posted by: art vandelay | November 8, 2015  7:02pm

art vandelay

Politijoe Shiningstars & Gutbomb have defined “Rich”. The rich are any person making money from the private sector or corporate America. The “Rich” must fork over 90% of that profit to the government which in turn supports the general good.  Only the government can decide what the general good is, not the citizenry. What I just described is socialism.  Our friends on the left do not see it as socialism and refuse to believe that it is.

posted by: dano860 | November 8, 2015  9:31pm

Spinoza, Dannel’s bottomless pocket offered a whole lot of money at budget time to the Representatives, pure and simple it was vote buying at its finest. I’m not certain that the funds you’re speaking of are part of that offer or an earlier one but items and issues like the one you mention are rampant in this State and its towns. My Representative is a democrat and didn’t vote for Dannel’s budget but he still received the $900K, non dedicated, he can do anything he wants with it, like a golf course.
Pathetic isn’t it?
Oh, l don’t believe “the gang that can’t shoot straight”, R’s or D’s are socialists. They are addicts, addicted to spending and ‘bring home the bacon’ to the, way to many, 169 little fiefdoms in the tiny State of Connecticut.

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  10:37am


@Oldtimer: Lets clarify a few of your misinterpretations. You stated the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, what you’re referring to is the marginal tax rate-not the effective tax rate. This is the difference that allows a wealthy individual or corporation to pay only 15% and in many cases, LESS. I’m uncertain if you feel that wealthy Americans and corporations should be allowed to continue to contribute as much or even less than hard-working middle-class Americans, however, if that’s the case simply say so. Myself, like many Americans, don’t feel it is fair or sustainable, as evidenced over the last few decades; a crumbling infrastructure, failing education, the worlds costliest healthcare system, rising municipal property taxes, decreased mobility, increased concentration of wealth, inequality and a permanent class of poverty. The solution to restoring equality in our system of progressive taxation is to either increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest individuals and corporations to pre-Reagan levels or eliminate their deductions, but we simply cannot have both. History shows that whenever a nations share of wealth becomes “top heavy” the country is in for economic disaster. As an example in 1929 when the share of wealth in America rose to the levels we currently have obtained and the great depression began. Again in 2008 we experienced a similar economic reaction. This is a simplistic comparison but if you look at the history of wealth distribution around the world there is a distinct correlation between the two.

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  11:03am


@Oldtimer: your belief “The Socialist solution is to further business regulation and raise taxes to make things fair and Conservatives/Capitalists prefer to lower taxes and regulations, to entice businesses, create jobs.…..”  is a hollow generalization that reflects a very simplistic worldview of the economic challenges the middle-class is facing.  As an example, you stated “Everything Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have done since the death of JFK has worked towards creating a socialist state…”  you have again over-simplified the problem. You’re correct when you alluded to the fact the primary concern of political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land. The opposite is communism, whereas the state controls all means of production. There are also hybrid communists/capitalist societies like China. Next there is capitalism, which allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. The last is Socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other. However, your assertion that Socialism is the challenge our nation should fear is misguided. This is merely a distraction from the real threat to our economic way of life. The underlying problem is unfettered capitalism. This ideology can also be defined as a Corptocracy. As FDR stated “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself- that in its essence, is fascism” This sentiment was also echoed by Mussolini, who wrote “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.”  Fascism is simply capitalism in decay.

The reality is most Americans don’t want to steal wealth, don’t aspire to fascism and don’t intend to single out and punish corporations and the wealthy. They simply want to remain in the game and have the same advantages. However, the are becoming increasingly aware that the system is rigged against them. Keep in mind America is more than twice as wealthy today as in 1980. Yet in spite of increased productivity, historic corporate profits, and unprecedented CEO compensation, incomes for middle-class wage earners have stagnated and in some cases loss ground. Although it was not always this way, beginning in 1929 and until Reagan in 1980 the middle-class in this country got richer as productivity and corporate profits increased. The ratio of taxation relative to income remained balanced, corporations were taxed very high marginal rates, employees were unionized at much higher levels and market volatility remained remarkably stable. Our challenges are the result of unfettered capitalism and failed policies

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  11:15am


@Truthtopower: You have stated that I have “resorting to outright lying….”  Although I’m certainly not surprised that you failed to provide any evidence regarding this allegation. Therefore, I’m simply unable to comment directly.

You also stated that my “memory needs refreshing about the 90% figure, extracted from you after dozens of requests for a hard number.”….  you have brought this up before and again please provide any evidence of this claim where I advocated for a 90% marginal tax rate. Otherwise, in the future please refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations. You have a right to your opinion but you don’t have a right to make up your own facts.

posted by: RicB | November 9, 2015  11:47am

Liberals,Progressives, Socialists, Communists. Let’s start with the definition of Liberal: Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems. Let’s define Progressives: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action. Now Socialists: Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Lastly let’s define Communists: In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]. Now let’s define Conservative: Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Also, Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
So, which one are you? Which system has worked the best all over the world as we know it? Germany is a Capitalist country, Japan , Korea (South), the USA, etc. what these country’s have in common is very successful societies as a whole. All are slightly different of course but are defined as Capitalist economies. Ask the people who live or have lived in socialist, communist, economies and they will tell you capitalism is the one that works the best. We can not tax out of existence the varied individuals and corporations that make our system work,provide millions of jobs, invest in our towns and cities, establish foundations and give to charities. What would be the alternative? The government would have to provide for all these things and how would they do that? Increase taxes to such a level as to “create” a socialist society and this we do not want.

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  12:18pm


@Art: The paranoia fear-mongering evident in your calcified thinking was never more apparent then your last post which included “There are more important issues facing this nation, like the Muslim invasion of Europe and to a major extent the United States as one that nobody except Michael Savage is addressing” ……. Art if you think Muslim refugees moving into Europe and the relatively few who are seeking asylum in the U.S. from war torn nations is a significantly MORE important issue facing the American economy and middle-class than the challenges associated with wealth concentration, living wages, healthcare costs, corporate influence and private money in our public policies then you have unfortunately have become so utterly consumed with irrational fears and distractions from the likes of hate speech entertainers like Michael Savage, who peddle empty nationalist rhetoric and spew poisonous discourse that I believe there is simply no hope for you. For someone to actually cite an individual like Savage as a credible source is astounding. Here is just a sampling of “the good doctors” thinking and views.

“90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to scientific studies.”

“The U.S. Senate is more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into it.”

“The negro is that rabid animal that comes to our back door looking for food, and so many whites feel that because they hand out food to that poor creature they can pet it it like the family dog. But soon that rabid animal is going to attack because they feel they have the upper hand in all this.”

“ Ebola is part of the new Obamacare plan.”

Extremist, right-wing conservatives like Savage, Rush, Trump, etc are simply belligerent, loudmouth, racist, celebrities without an ounce of compassion for less fortunate individuals. In other words, they are exactly the kind of people the Republican base consist of and identifies with…..good god.

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  5:06pm


@Social: Im sorry if you, Art, Truth and a few others feel that invading Muslims, birth certificates, death panels and Mexican rapists are the real threat to the middle-class. It’s also unfortunate that in spite of the evidence, conservatives on this site appear to cling to the notion that middle-class teachers and firemen and public sector union members are the problem and the reason the nation is in debt. This in spite of the fact that US taxpayers spend over $80 billion dollars on corporate welfare. You seem more concerned with silly labels like Socialists,  Marxists and Communists than you do with the challenges that are facing the middle-class and the working poor. You appear to spend more time dismissing the data and protecting the interests of the corporate elite than you do discussing the issues and solutions that would restore a proper balance to middle-class representation. Conservatives ignore the willful disconnect between their myth of apple-pie capitalism, which they staunchly defend, and the realities of unfettered capitalism that is destroying our democracy.

We are not in debt because of unions or Socialist or Democrats. The reason the nation is in debt is because we went to war without paying for it. Because we illegally invaded another nation which cost us 4 trillion dollars and over 100,000 lives-without paying for it. Were in debt because we created a prescription drug plan that costs hundreds of billions of dollars without paying for it. Were in debt because of enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and unsustainable corporate welfare policies. Were in debt because we have substituted a stable and predictable financial industry for a virtual Wall Street casino run by speculators. And were in debt because we spend a trillion dollars annually on our military to justify a culture of perpetual war… without paying for any of it.  Along the way we have chosen to sacrifice our educational system, our infrastructure, our healthcare and the middle-class. We have chosen to blame the unions while ignoring corporate money in our public policy. We have chosen to allow wealthy individuals and corporations to influence our electoral system and to protect the corporations as they exploit our governments, our environment and our wages and refuse to contribute their fair share.

All of this didn’t just happen, we chose to allow it to happen. So excuse me if I don’t get quite as panicked at the thought of poor, uneducated Mexican mothers and children crossing the border for a better life or another Middle East war. Because, the biggest benefactor of our perpetual culture of war has been the ability to distract the nation from the corporate war on us.

posted by: gutbomb86 | November 9, 2015  5:22pm


@politjoe - it’s like you’re talking to a bunch statues of joe mccarthy in the various stages of rage and consternation.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | November 9, 2015  5:27pm

The role of government at the Federal level is to GTF, and STF, OUT OF THE WAY of the people.

That role is CLEARLY codified in the US Constitution; with plenty of amplification in the Federalist Papers for the dimmer bulbs in the crowd.

Of course, since 1865 the US federal government has failed miserably at satisfying that clear intent of the Founders.

150 years later we reap what we sow.

posted by: Social Butterfly | November 9, 2015  6:11pm

Democratic leaders like Sharkey riddle taxpayors wth costly mistakrs and are experts in making excuses. Dannel Malloy taught them well.

posted by: oldtimer | November 9, 2015  7:06pm

Well art… it seems some have taken issue with my abridged definitions for democracy, liberalism, progressivism and socialism. (I tried to keep it short, long-winded posts are so boring). Not only was I “corrected”, but in typical condescending fashion, I’m told it was a “hollow generalization”. I noticed too that your “fear mongering” is ridiculous and not to be tolerated. Why do you concern yourself with such nonsense? Anyway, reading through such drivel I couldn’t help but think of the infamous words of Nikita Krushchev, “We will destroy you from within.”... How prescient he was…

posted by: Politijoe | November 9, 2015  7:24pm


@Gutbomb…..good one. Thanks

posted by: justsayin | November 9, 2015  7:46pm

Somewhere I got lost in this. He failed, they failed and now again we (the working folks) need o step up and fix it. Why is he still in office what are gut and ploijoe rambling on about? Simple you failed you leave.

posted by: oldtimer | November 9, 2015  7:49pm

Biff… well said!... If the Socialists running this country today were running the country back in the 1800 - 1900s, there would NEVER have been an industrial revolution. We would never have heard the names Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Westinghouse, Tesla, Edison or Ford to name a few. Those disgusting Capitalists!... If Socialists ran this country through the 20th century, we’d all be speaking German or Japanese and wondering what kind of cheese the moon was made of.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 9, 2015  9:06pm

Politijoe: it appears that your desperation to be relevant or to be believed is driving you to make inaccurate statements and deny previous statements, then compounding the problem by failing to acknowledge either when you’re called out on them. No one can be expected to engage in any kind of rational conversation with you under such circumstances.

Here’s the proof you requested. And let me point out that if there is any confusion about your statements, positions, and beliefs about your preferred tax rates, it is because you continue to dodge and/or obfuscate a very simple question. My question was and has been based on your own parameters: Provide the RATIO TO INCOME percentage that you think would be fair for EVERYONE (please note emphasis on EVERYONE).

In the link I have provided, you responded at 9:18pm to that very question, that you advocate for a 90% statutory tax rate. Please note that as usual, you conveniently ignored the EVERYONE part of the question. Now you pretend that you have never mentioned 90% in reference to a ‘marginal tax rate’. Your word games are becoming boring and painfully obvious. Feel free to clear the issue up if you can.  You can clear things up for all time and for all of us by providing us with your preferred or suggested graduated, progressive taxation NUMBERS/PERCENTAGES per income level.

Your lie is evident in the thread you are reading now. I refer to you putting words in Markrose’ mouth when you stated “You’re correct, both federal and state budgets require a comprehensive solution that includes increased corporate revenues and spending cuts.” When this was pointed out to you, you responded that state budgets can’t be discussed without referencing federal budgets (or some such nonsense). Whether or not that is true has nothing to do with your intentional error, ascribing words to Markrose that he didn’t say. Not being intellectually honest enough to admit it does not serve you well.
If your posting history is any indication, you’ll provide you usual lengthy and – most importantly - EVASIVE response. That is, if you respond at all. Of course you’re free to avoid clarifying your position as requested, but if you choose not to I would appreciate it if you would stop wasting everyone’s time with the nonsense that you have so far added to this conversation.


posted by: Biff Winnetka | November 9, 2015  10:08pm

The Sharkster and his Progressive ilk can ignore the writing on the wall…the actual wall itself will be another story.

posted by: art vandelay | November 9, 2015  10:57pm

art vandelay

Last I checked the official US dead in the Iraq War was 4,486 not 100,000 as you claim.

posted by: Spinoza | November 10, 2015  10:01am

Biff: “Of course, since 1865 the US federal government has failed miserably at satisfying that clear intent of the Founders.”

Since 1865? Oh, you mean when the federal government told southern states that they could not secede if they don’t like election results, and they no longer would be allowed to enslave human beings? Yeah, you must be missing those good old days of freedom and liberty, and states’ rights, eh?

posted by: art vandelay | November 10, 2015  10:29am

art vandelay

@Spinoza, I couldn’t agree more. The second government gets its hands on money confiscated from corporations and citizens it’s quickly Pi—ed away. Citizens should do everything possible so as to prevent government from obtaining more. What our state government did last session is a perfect example.  Government must learn to live within its means.

posted by: RicB | November 10, 2015  10:34am

@politijoe, here are 2 tables put together by Citizens For Tax Justice, a left leaning advocacy group founded by labor unions and public interest groups, I have included this info lest you think that the data was made up by some “hated” (by you) conservative group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/. This data shows that all groups do pay “their fair share”. Sure there are large multi-national corporations that do not pay a reasonable amout of their profits in taxes, it is not every corporation by any means. Laws were passed long ago making these tax breaks legal, no one has changed them, Republicans or Democrats. We have this problem in our own state with the Malloy “First Five” corporate welfare policy which has now become the First Fifteen. This ” program” has given out almost a billion dollars to date. If our state was run by fiscally responsible legislators, instead of the clowns we have now, maybe we would have a reasonable OVERALL tax burden that would attract companies to CT. and keep the ones we already have, maybe well-off individuals would stay and not move to more fiscally responsible states. There are many and varied reasons taxes are higher in CT. and the Northeast as a whole, but we can and must do a better job of responsible taxation and most importantly, responsible spending.This would make more sense then what has been going on in this state since the Democrats have had a virtual dictatorship running our state into debt.When will people wake up!

posted by: Social Butterfly | November 10, 2015  11:06am

The biggest mistake was made by our errant voters who should be on suicide watch after electing incompetent Democratic bankruptcy driven politcians like Brendan Sharkey and that failing donkey driven lot into office.

posted by: art vandelay | November 10, 2015  11:21am

art vandelay

To be honest I could give a rat’s you know what about your relentless diatribe regarding
income inequality, the rich not paying their “fair share”. What I do care about is the survival of this great nation and to a larger extent Christanity and Western Civilization.

I’m not fear mongering or bigoted in my belief that the current invasion of Muslims into Europe and the United States will have long term detrimental effects.  I have history as proof to what can an will happen to Western Civilization. One only has to read about the Battle of Tours in 732 where Charles Martel defeated a Muslim invasion of France. In 1492 Queen Isabelle of Spain drove the Muslims from Spain and later southern Europe.

The current Muslim invasion into the western world has had far more success than ever before in the history of mankind. Please do not respond by stating Muslims desire to enter this country to fulfill the “American Dream”. For the most part Muslims have no interest in assimilating into our culture and society. If they were I would have no problems in welcoming them.

We as a country should take what is written in the Koran seriously. In 3:151 it states “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”  2:216 “Fighting is prescribed for you and killing kuffar for Allah is ordained for you”.  2:193 When Allah dominates the world then there will be peace”.  If this does not send a message or send chills down your spine, I don’t know what will.

The Socialists constant rhetoric regarding income inequality and paying ones “fair share” will become a moot point if the Muslim invasion succeeds. Western Civilization won’t be around to argue these ridiculous points.

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  1:39pm


@Truth: The level of vitriol and theatrics in your responses concerning what appears to be semantics seems…….  just silly.
The reality is, if viewed within the context of the thread, only an individual with remedial comprehension skills would conclude that I was advocating for a 90% tax rate. Any rational thinking adult would have recognized the nuance and understand the underlying theme of the thread and would have avoided such a flimsy argument in the first place.
The gist of the discussion centered on the ratio of taxation relative to income, (admittedly a concept you have difficultly grasping) Nevertheless, what is interesting about the link you provided is the fact you chose to omit the critical point of the discussion thread-


Therefore, as I stated on Oct 3rd
“The obvious choices are to either raise marginal tax rates to 90% on wealthy Americans and corporations and allow for loopholes and deductions, thus settling on an effective rate of approximately 40% which is sustainable or have statutory rates about 40% and eliminate loopholes and deductions. To continue with our current effective tax rates at 12% or less is unsustainable. The same day I reiterated:  “It’s safe to assume you disagree or simply cannot understand the ratio of taxation, raising the statutory rate, closing loopholes or establishing a hard stop effective rate….”

On Oct 2nd I mentioned that a tax rate of 90% with deductions and loop-holes would bring us closer to a 40% effective tax rate. And in the discussion thread the same day I again mentioned:
“The obvious choices are to either raise tax rates to 90% on wealthy Americans and corporations and allow for loopholes and deductions, thus settling on an effective tax rate of approximately 40% which is sustainable or we have statutory rates at 39% absent loopholes and deductions, but we cannot continue with our current system of effective tax rates at 12% or less. .....

Once again on SEPT 30th I stated
“The solution would be to correct the disparity by adjusting the ratio of taxation so that it remains more proportional to an individual’s income.

Truth to power, the real question is why are you having such a difficult time understanding this basic concept in practice for decades?

Also, why is it acceptable that billionaires and wealthy corporations contribute 13% and less in taxes but the middle-class construction worker, teacher, and fireman pay 28% and more? Why should the American taxpayer subsidize corporate welfare $80 billion dollars annually? Why is it acceptable for a corporation like GE, who earned $150 billion in revenues to contribute only $250 towards Connecticut state taxes?

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  2:21pm


@Oldtimer: You chose not to respond to the middle-class challenges of unfettered capitalism and instead decided to complain about how you and Art’s feelings are hurt. My God what grade level are you communicating on?

posted by: useyourhead2 | November 10, 2015  2:29pm

Mistakes were made indeed.  And the biggest was electing and then reelecting Malloy. 

Elections have consequnces and “Pain Promotes Change”.  Maybe when these left wingnut liberals that the Connecticut electorate keep electing causes enough pain, they will get a clue to change to change their bad habits of electing frauds like Malloy. 

I wouldn’t promote on Political Party over the other because in CT, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference.

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  2:44pm


@Justsayin: you commented “Somewhere I got lost in this.  they failed and now again we (the working folks) need to step up and fix it. what are gut and politijoe rambling on about?”

Easy to get lost in all the noise, I agree.
I also agree with you the working folks should not have to clean-up this fiscal mess, we should not have to carry this burden. That is exactly the point . In spite of what conservatives would like us to believe, this issue is less about unions, Malloy or Ct. These issues are much broader and have to do with our federal policies which directly influence state budgets like Connecticut. The feds contribute an average of 33% to state budgets and states send money back to the feds. Therefore the two are symbiotic in nature. In essence we have a form of state subsidization from one group to another. Another component to this equation is taxation. If federal revenues are down due to unfunded wars, tax breaks, healthcare, etc and this creates a deficit between revenues and expenses then that is also reflected in funding to the states-which influences municipal property taxes, services and other liabilities.

This is a much bigger problem than unionized teachers and social workers. Its far bigger than a Democratic state Gov…. This is about our policies of federal revenue and expenditures, and until we address these broader underlying issues, little to nothing can change on the state level.

Thats the point.

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  3:29pm


@Art: you may be surprised to learn that commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . .  are all in the Bible and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran.

At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, however the fact remains the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture. For instance, the Gospel of John expresses hostility to the Ioudaioi, (Jews) who plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him and in turn, Jesus calls them liars and children of the Devil. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously supports this sentiment, it would be the tale of Phinehas, (Numbers 25: 1-15). American racists love this passage, in 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming Phinehas as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.

The richest biblical gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims “I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” (Deut. 32:42). In the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses authorized his followers once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities (Deut. 20: 16-18).

None of this even touches on the Inquisitions, the America’s genocides, the Salem witch trials or the American religious terrorists group the KKK. I could elaborate further but the point is your rabid fear of a Muslim invasion inspired by evil scripture is incomplete and lacks context when a broader perspective is considered. I think a Muslim invasion is as likely as a Martian invasion.

This is a perfect illustration of a fear manufactured to distract uninformed Americans from the real war being waged on the middle-class by the corporate-military machine.

posted by: art vandelay | November 10, 2015  3:44pm

art vandelay

Trust me my feelings are not hurt. Not in the slightest.  Why should they when I could care less about the topic you hold so dear. Income equalization, paying ones “fair share” and corporate taxation policies are at the bottom of the list. Illegal immigration, and the Muslim invasion are far more serious issues. If this nation does nothing to stop it our entire civilization and way of life is in serious jeopardy .

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 10, 2015  3:56pm

politijoe: thank you for the expected response. I beg to differ but the REAL question is exactly as I asked - I won’t bother repeating it as your blind spot will miss it anyway.

Don’t expect anyone to answer anything you ask unless and until you can answer questions.

Vitriol? From me? Really? Please reread virtually every post on this thread that you have posted. No need to visit other editorials as the result is the same. Your arrogance and condescending attitude are appalling

posted by: Social Butterfly | November 10, 2015  4:22pm

@useyourhead: Your contention that you would not promote one party over the other after calling “Malloy the biggest elected mistake” isn’t apparently ‘using your head” as Malloy and his motley controlling elected helpers that has put our state in dire straights all belong to the Democratic Party.

posted by: useyourhead2 | November 10, 2015  4:50pm

Social Butterfly.  I contend that in fact there is NO Republican Party in Connecticut, at lease one that espouses and fights for conservative values. 

And what exactly has the so called Republican Party in CT ever done to fight for conservative values?  Both the Democrat and Republican Parties are LIBERAL!!! 

What better example than Lowell Weicher who even last year doomed Republicans in the 2014 Midterm and was proven very wrong (http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Weicker-GOP-doomed-in-midterm-elections-5545523.php)  You might recall that it was Weicker that helped give CT its State Income Tax and that is NOT a very conservative thing to do.

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  4:58pm


@Truth to power:  exactly what I thought…. thank you for finally agreeing with me and the validation.

posted by: osemasterofdoom | November 10, 2015  5:04pm


Haven’t heard the name Charles Martel since my High School freshman history teacher referred to him as “Chuck the Hammer.”  Nice one, Art.

posted by: art vandelay | November 10, 2015  6:12pm

art vandelay

I agree there are stories of ethnic cleansing, and we can argue interpretations of biblical meanings until the cows come home and never come to any agreeable conclusions.

Let me ask you this. Were is Christians or Jews who flew the Boeing jetliners into the World Trade Center.  Was it Jews or Christians who bombed the Marine Barracks in Lebanon?  Was it a Christian who planted the bombs on the PanAM jet that blew up in Scotland or the recent jet in Egypt?
It’s not the Jews or Christians proclaiming death to Israel and the US now is it.  Yes we do have a problem and you can’t put your head in the sand and pretend its not a problem.  Well guess what it is and it’s real.  Might want to pick up a copy of Ann Coulter’s new book Adios American and Michael Savage’s Government Zero and stop writing them off as no nothing kooks.

posted by: Politijoe | November 10, 2015  7:01pm


@Art: Im honestly not sure what is more alarming, your thinking about marauding Muslims invading the U.S. or the fact you say these things in public.

posted by: oldtimer | November 10, 2015  7:08pm

art, Truth & Biff… I’m afraid we’ll get nothing but garrulous rantings from our friend on the left. He will never define “fair” or “rich” and will always dance around the taxation question. As with all leftists, his response will always begin with some sort of personal attack, overt or otherwise, and then proceed to bore us to death. Unfortunately, history, especially the history of economics escapes people of his ilk and as George Santayana so presciently stated… “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”... Fortunately, there are many here, notably you three, whose knowledge of history and present day issues is inspiring. Keep up the good work…

posted by: oldtimer | November 10, 2015  7:14pm

For all the leftist rantings about corporate greed, income gaps and unscrupulous CEOs, why have none of them brought to light Malloy’s malfeasance?  If Malloy, Looney or Sharkey were running a major corporation like GE, they’d be jailed for cooking the books!

posted by: ehdatascientist | November 11, 2015  7:06am

While the extensive “ism” discussion has been a somewhat interesting and tiresome digression, the lessons for the state administration to take to heart and make significant improvement are time management, administrative effectiveness, and leadership.  The governor was late in presenting his initial budget.  The general assembly should have its budget presented by May 1 so it could be openly and publically discussed in hearings and tweaked for a final vote before Memorial Day.  If that time schedule cannot be met, then maybe longer legislative sessions need to be implemented - say to end in early to mid July.

posted by: art vandelay | November 11, 2015  8:57am

art vandelay

@Politijoe, It’s a topic that needs to be brought out into the open. To be frank and honest, it’s a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. The Left ignores it completely and vilifies the right for even discussing it. Immediately if the subject is even broached the individual is deemed, an immigration extremist, anti-American, and at worst a bigot.

Believe me when I say I’m first in line to promote proper immigration into this country. Our grandparents did it.  They learned the language, assimilated into society, and most importantly Americanized themselves. Unfortunately it is not the case today. For the most part the illegals entering this country have no desire to learn the language or assimilate themselves into American Society.  The Main Stream Media now goes to great lengths to cover up the nationality and religion of the perpetrators who randomly kill at will.
Yes it’s a matter of national security and the problem needs to be brought to the forefront.  My apologies to the editorial staff for being off subject, but this matter is of most importance to this great nation.

posted by: Politijoe | November 11, 2015  9:25am


@Oldtimer: The question of defining the terms Rich and Fair has been asked and answered on numerous occasions, the problem is conservatives don’t seem to like the answer.

Nevertheless, here is the answer again and please don’t request a “specific number”
that has been elaborated on and answered in many previous posts- its up to you to do your homework.

Rich-1% more specifically the upper 0.1%

Fair taxation- a proportional ratio of taxation relative to income

posted by: Biff Winnetka | November 11, 2015  10:13am

PJ opined…

“@Art: Im honestly not sure what is more alarming, your thinking about marauding Muslims invading the U.S. or the fact you say these things in public.”

Art,  it just gets beyond the processing capacity of some people to understand that the marauding Muslim immigration chaos in Sweden and elswhere in suiciding Europe will happen in the US.  Of course the US main stream media won’t report on the Muslim chaos in Sweden so maybe PJ is just ignorant of the situation when he vomits through his keyboard.

Where there are Muslims there is the MidEast and East Asia.  I don’t want to live in the Mideast or East Asia.
What it will take for PJ and his Prog ilk to get it, I dont know. Maybe when there are Muslim Community No-Go zones in Newtown.  Or perhaps when the view from atop Castle Hill incldues a Mosque.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | November 11, 2015  2:08pm

Here’s what I am doing…

I am keeping track, detailed records, of who is reposnsible for the fiscal messes at the municipal, state and federal levels.

Eventually there will be accountability and I will do all I can to use my records to hold these people accountable.

They will not get a “pass” just becasue “it’s politics”.

posted by: art vandelay | November 11, 2015  3:35pm

art vandelay

“Fair Taxation-A Proportional Ratio Relative to Income”. I get it. I believe the goal of fair taxation has already been accomplished.

We have a graduated income tax in place.  The more you make, the more they take. I think what you’re addressing is the fact that the more you make the more deductions become available if one invests wisely.  It’s the deductions and loopholes you have issues with.  I get it and to the most part I agree.  I believe a flat tax with no deductions for anyone except a primary residence would be acceptable.  Stephen Forbes tried to initiate a flat tax years ago.  His concept was flatly rejected.  Personally I believe it holds value.

I do however has issues with the left in regards to not specifically defining who the rich are and at what income level does one define rich.  A homeless person living in a cardboard box considers a person driving a beat up jalopy rich.  A person living on rent barley putting food on the table would consider an individual owning a small house in a “slum” rich.  My point being the term “rich” is completely relative and can never be defined specifically.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 11, 2015  3:45pm

politijoe wrote: “Nevertheless, here is the answer again and please don’t request a “specific number”
that has been elaborated on and answered in many previous posts- its up to you to do your homework.

Rich-1% more specifically the upper 0.1%

Fair taxation- a proportional ratio of taxation relative to income”

His absurdity has come full circle to this point where he insists no one question his words or the meaning of his oft-repeated phrases. LOL

If that’s how it works, then please, politjoe, do not talk about taxation levels and the rich/poor divide, of the concept of ‘fair’ when it comes to taxes. It’s clear that you’re not willing to provide any substance to your pie-in-the-sky statements. Or, you can do YOUR homework and provide the requested information.

Your little trick thanking me for validating your information and agreeing with you went bust, as well. Your desperation is becoming more and more apparent.

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages