Skip to main content

Ron Paul For Governor of Connecticut


After reading a well-reasoned piece in UConn’s Daily Campus writtenby Thomas Dilling, it is difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that presidential candidate  Ron would make a far better governor of Connecticut than present Governor Dannel Malloy.

Mr. Malloy earned 15 minutes of fame recently for calling Mr. Paul an idiot. Mr. Paul suggested doing away with FEMA and delegating its powers to states and municipalities.

“Although the governor will likely dismiss me as an idiot,” Mr. Dilling writes , “there is good reason for Connecticut to believe that FEMA should not be a federal responsibility.”

Surely, Mr. Dilling reasons, the flow of money from Connecticut to Texas should interest Connecticut’s governor: “…according to FEMA's website, Texas leads the nation in declared disasters since 1953 with 85 compared to Connecticut's 27 (47th place). Yet, despite this realization that FEMA takes money from Connecticut and spends it in Texas, Connecticut's governor not only supports FEMA, but dismisses anyone who dares to question a program with this type of structure as ‘an idiot…’


“In the absence of a federal program designed to subsidize more disaster-prone states such as Texas, the cost associated with these routine natural disasters would be paid out by the taxpayers of Texas, rather than the taxpayers of other states. Furthermore, abolishing a federal role in these routine disasters would give states and municipalities the incentive to be better prepared for when these events occur, rather than relying on federal support. The moral hazard associated with subsidizing states that are more disaster prone ought to be clear. By externalizing the costs associated with these disasters, it makes these states more attractive to people looking for places to live, putting more people in harm's way come future disasters. This hurts Connecticut's competitive standing against states like Texas who don't have to price the cost of disaster into their taxes.”

Mr. Dilling did not observe that politicians, as a general rule, bathe themselves every morning in the baptismal font of moral hazard, but if he continues to drink deep of the Pierian Spring, he may get there:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."
17 comments
Read more

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...
Post a Comment
Read more