This interview with Vivian Rockwell Nasiatka took place
over a few days. As I was preparing to cast it into stone on Connecticut
Commentary, the Washington Post ran a story on a Federal Reserve Bulletin that
was profoundly discouraging.
According to the report,“the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent
in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts
Americans roughly on par with where they were back in 1992.” The recession has
left its mark upon us all. It has lingered so long because the fire brigade
that was supposed to douse the flames instead, in the immortal words of former
Governor Lowell Wicker, “poured gas on the fire” by boosting taxes. Less
spending certainly would have helped to boost Connecticut’s prosperity. Instinctively,
we know that business, rather than government, is the best economic pump
primer. Instinctively, we know that redistribution of wealth does not increase
wealth. In moving money from the real economy to government coffers, we are
taking a bucket of water from the low end of the pool and dumping it into the
high end of the pool. It takes a gifted magician to convince people that the
process increases the net amount of water – or wealth. Ms. Vivian Rockwell Nasiaka is,
happily for all of us, instinctively wise in the ways of accounting, real
estate and politics, a passion she hopes to turn into an vocation– with a
little help from voters in the 64th District who may prefer her good
sense, as reflected in this interview, over the magic realism of Connecticut politicians
who have, for reasons touched upon below, very nearly destroyed Connecticut.
She is living proof that the Democrat’s war on Republican women (and men)
ultimately will fail. Vivian's site is here.
A. I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to delineate some of the differences between me and Representative Willis. I will close by asking the 64th’s new towns—Norfolk, Canaan, North Canaan and Kent—to stay their course by electing a Republican to carry on in place of Republican Representatives Richard Smith and John Rigby who, because of redistricting into the 64th District, will no longer be representing them.
Q: You are running on
the Republican ticket for the 64th House District, which has undergone a
redistricting change. The District, which used to include Salisbury, Sharon,
Cornwall, Goshen, Canaan (Falls Village) and about half of Torrington, now
includes all of Kent, about 1/3 of Goshen and a smaller chunk of Torrington. How
will the changes affect Republican prospects in the District?
A. On the surface, it should help as Kent, Norfolk, Canaan
and North Canaan are currently represented by Republican Representatives
Richard Smith and John Rigby. Representative Willis is not an unknown name
within those towns and being an incumbent is always an advantage. However,
those towns have also been long-time supporters of fiscal conservative State
Senator Andrew Roraback who has a voting record for fiscal responsibility that
is a standard to which Rep. Willis doesn’t come close. And she can’t hide from
the fact that she has supported every single bill and act that Gov. Malloy and
her Party has passed that increased taxes and state debt. I am clearly more in
Senator’s Roraback’s mold when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which will
give the voters in these towns a very clear choice this November.
Q: The District has
been represented for five terms by Roberta Willis, a Democrat much taken with
Governor Dannel Malloy’s agenda for the state. As you know, she is the host of
Capitol Connections. In a recent broadcast, Ms. Willis praised Mr. Malloy on his
budget – now balanced, she says, after years of accounting trickery. Do you
agree?
A. Emphatically no. Do they give F’s anymore for failure?
Actually I’ll be a little more generous and give the Governor a D for taking a
harder stand with the CT Teachers Union. However, there’s little to
substantiate that the Governor has turned the CT economy around, and he has
repeatedly broken his campaign promise to not steal from Specific Funds for the
General Fund to cover operating expenses. Winston Churchill believed there were
two desirable traits for a politician. The first was to have the ability to
foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next
year. So in Malloy’s run for Governor, we heard a lot of good old Irish blarney
filled with promises that can’t be met simply because the Democrat one party
system refuses to address the problems that plague the state.
Democrat state Treasurer Denise Nappier’s June report to the
Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee reveals why Malloy gets an F on the
economy. Despite Malloy’s more than $1.5 billion in state tax and fee increases
ordered in May 2010, plus the Democrats’ May 2012 budget amendment increasing
taxes by $2.6 billion, revenues are not coming in at the pace that was
anticipated, and thus the Democrat administration is failing to achieve the
budget blarney (savings) Malloy promised. Worse, Nappier stated Connecticut can
expect $234 million less in tax and other revenue next fiscal year than originally
forecast, and $311 million less in 2013-14. Why does it take a fiscally
responsible Republican candidate to ask the question: If the economy has turned
around and Connecticut is back on the road to recovery, why do Governor Dannel
Malloy’s historic tax increases fail to generate as much revenue as forecast?
And how long will Connecticut voters continue to allow the Democrats to keep
siphoning off other state funds to keep the budget balanced?
Q: A very good question. I invite you to answer it. There is
a point of diminishing returns with tax increases. As taxes increase, money
that might be used by the private economy to create jobs or provide salary
increases – both real job stimulants –are transferred to government coffers and
made available to politicians to promote schemes some would say are
unproductive. Crony capitalists love this sort of thing.
A: Sadly, too many people don’t want to see the reality of a
problem that is staring them square in the face. It’s akin to the substance
abuser who say’s they don’t have a problem as they continue sinking and
drowning in ever increasing self-inflicted abuse. As we know, only when the
addict hits rock bottom can the process of recovery and rehabilitation begin. I
hope it won’t be like this for CT, but given the way people vote and give
passes to the politicians would indicate this may ultimately be CT’s fate. If
this is the case, then the answer to my own question is this: the Democrats
will keep siphoning off funds until there are no more funds available.
It’s not unlike British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
saying how socialists will keep spending other people’s money until there isn’t
any more to spend. I think our unrestrained politicians in CT will keep taxing
until there’s no longer a sufficient tax base to tax; they will have departed
to friendlier states. Or they will keep properties here, pay their real estate
taxes but live outside CT for 6 months and a day to avoid CT’s onerous
retirement and estate taxes. I hear and see this right here in the affluent NW
Corner; it’s the reality the voters and politicians won’t recognize until it’s
too late.
And you’re right Don, there is definitely a point of
diminishing return with taxes. Why is it the more CT’s politicians increase
taxes the more taxes our state government needs to operate? Taxes are our
legislators’ addiction; they more they take the more they need to feed their
spending habits. And far too much of those taxes are going to fund far too many
state employees. This is partially due to the influence of urban and city
legislators that believe the solution to any social problem is always to throw
more money at it, increase regulation and build a bigger bureaucracy to manage
it. And far too many of our legislators have become professional career
politicians who retain office by spreading the wealth of CT around to their
constituents and union pals.
I believe there are 151 representatives and 36 senators in
the state legislature. Now think about this. How do 187 legislators generate
over a thousand proposed bills and acts and vote on over 550 of them during a
single term? And the vast majority of these acts and bills have to do with more
regulations, increasing taxes, adding more debt and giving our money away; too
often to curry favor and influence with specific groups and organizations. As
one of my legislator friends said, there was a time when the Legislature knew
to close down and go home; most of them had dairy cows to milk. Today CT’s
unrestrained Democrat legislators are milking the tax payers.
Q. Governor Malloy has an educational reform plan, a
major portion of which involves an expansion of pre-kindergarten classes. Based
on that recent Capital Connections video, do you agree with Rep. Willis and Cook in
their plans for education and their reservations about charter schools in
Connecticut?
A. It was painful to watch the video of Reps Willis
& Cook—two perpetuators of Connecticut's serious economic
problems—pontificate about solutions; especially when it was difficult to
really understand what they were trying to sell. What did come through is that
they are both caught up in the liberal vortex of excessive government control
in the private lives of citizens is the best solution to Connecticut's woes.
I understand the need for many parents to have childcare
support in order to be able to work and make a living, but I do not believe
that turning our adolescent children over to the state is better than an
actively involved stay at home mom or dad. But the tragic fact is the cost to
live in Connecticut today—with the highest gasoline tax and 2ndhighest
utility rate in the nation, which are just two examples of Connecticut's
overtaxed citizens—require both parents to work. Too many parents can’t afford
not to work, especially since Connecticut is # 1 in the Nation for Tax Freedom
Day—May 5ththis year—which is the day Connecticut’s taxpayers have
finally earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. Far
too many parents are forced to work for Uncle Sam and Father Malloy and then
reply upon the state to raise their children. This is another reason why young
people are leaving Connecticut to raise their families in other states.
Willis & Cook’s reservations about Charter schools
are pure bureaucratic thinking. The facts are that between 1999 to 2009 the
number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than tripled from
340,000 to 1.4 million students and the percentage of all public schools that
were charter schools increased from 2 to 5 percent, comprising over 4,700
schools in 2009. This upward trend is due to success.
America also has a recent historic example in New Orleans of
what Charter schools can achieve, particularly with inner city poverty level
schools. After Hurricane Katrina, more than 85% that city’s schools—over 110 of
them—were literally destroyed. But rather than rebuild them to old bureaucratic
standards, New Orleans took the opportunity to do things differently. Today,
over half of New Orleans city schools are Charter schools that are publicly
authorized, funded, and evaluated, but independently operated. One benefit has
been the drop from 67 percent to 34 percent of New Orleans students attending a
low-performing school.
While this could be an example of a solution to
Connecticut's underperforming schools, particularly in Connecticut's urban and
inner cities, both Willis & Cook express serious reservations about
Connecticut investing in independent Charter schools. Furthermore, they believe
that Connecticut Charter school teachers who are not wholly required to be as
certified their counterparts in the traditional bureaucratically run public
schools, must be forced to meet all of the same certification requirements.
This is a prime example of the liberal bureaucratic mindset; forced government
control and more regulation and certification. Willis & Cook can’t help
being what they are– controlling bureaucrats. They should take off their
blinders, look at the success of independent Charter schools in New Orleans and
take a long hard look to see if this is needed in Connecticut.
Q. What do you think
of the Governor’s efforts to spur business activity in the state through tax
credits targeted at preferred industries, grants and his“First Five” program?
A. It would have been interesting to hear the floor debate
on Public
Act No. 11-86, which created the Governor’s “First Five” program and learn why Senator Roraback voted NO and Willis
& Cook voted Yes. But again, Willis & Cook are pretty much
straight party line voters for whatever the Governor wants.
Anytime a company can bring or create new jobs in Connecticut should be
applauded, but the question remains to be answered - at what cost to Connecticut's
tax payers? The Act requires the recipient company—and I quote the Act—“to
(A) create not less than two hundred new jobs within twenty-four months from
the date such application is approved; or (B) invest not less than twenty-five
million dollars and create not less than two hundred new jobs within five years
from the date such application is approved.” The Act doesn’t address what the
penalty is if the company doesn’t invest the $25 million and then fails to
create the required jobs. Furthermore, the 4thcompany to take
advantage of this program, the NBC Sports Group, received a $20 million dollar
loan from the state. So if they didn’t pony up $25 million and they received
$20 million there’s a net capital difference of $45 million on the backs of the
Connecticut taxpayers. Hopefully in the long run the state will be revenue
positive in this program. Let’s hope a watchdog tax group like Connecticut's Yankee Institute or The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations
follows this program’s performance.
But tax payers also need to recognize that the “First Five”
program is designed to attract large-scale business employers. As far as
spurring on business, it’s Connecticut's small business person or employer,
which employs almost three quarters of a million workers, who needs relief from
taxes and too much government regulation. According to the 2010 U.S. Small
Business Administration, Office of Advocacy report, and again I quote, “Small
businesses totaled 318,230 in Connecticut in 2009. They represent 97.2 percent
of all employers and employ 50 percent of the private-sector workforce. Being
such a large part of the state’s economy, these businesses are central to Connecticut’s
health and well-being.”
If Connecticut is to ever get back on the path to
prosperity, the Governor and his Democrat legislature have to stop pursuing the
big media attention deals and focus on fixing what ails the state; the plight
of Connecticut's real employers–small businesses. But don’t hold your breath.
Until there is real change in Hartford, both small and large employers will
continue to leave and our young people will follow. In fact, the Partnership
for Strong Communities confirms this harsh reality reporting that Connecticut
has lost a higher percentage of its 25-34-year-old population since 1990 than
any other state with the exception of Maine and New Hampshire. To lose close
connections between children and parents is a tragedy for Connecticut families.
Q. The governor also
has claimed he intends to “reinvent” Connecticut. How is he doing so far?
A. As for
reinventing Connecticut , I believe the citizens recently got to see the
Governor’s true colors. The Governor’s $27 million marketing and branding
campaign for the state, “Connecticut—Still Revolutionary,” recently lived up to
its name when the Yankee Institute exposed Malloy and friends’ plan to borrow
another $300,000 to repair the HQ building of the Connecticut Communist Party
and The Worker’s weekly newspaper People's World. Imagine using our tax dollars to shelter
communism right here in Connecticut!
The out-pouring of
citizen outrage stopped the insanity this time, but as long as unrestrained
Democrats remain in control of the legislature, and it’s been over 30 years,
citizens must expect more taxes and debt. In fact, House Bill 5557 that was
passed in the last legislative session, on which Roraback voted NO and yet
again true blue to Malloy Rep. Willis voted YES, is a prime example of the
on-going Democrat spending spree. For example, $20,000 granted to the West
Indian Foundation, Inc. for a parade. $100,000 for the city of Norwich to cast
a “Freedom Bell” so it can be rung on Emancipation day, and $600,000 to the
Spanish-American Merchants Association of New Haven.
The Democrats
believe money grows on trees in Connecticut's small towns, which is why for
every tax dollar sent to Hartford, Kent for example gets back 6 cents,
Salisbury gets 7 and Sharon gets just 3. Meanwhile, small town roads
deteriorate and aren’t maintained as legislators like Rep. Willis &
Cook, like drunken sailors, throw money for parades and bronze bells. This is
the insanity the Connecticut tax payer faces. Connecticut's citizens must
realize this unrestrained spending goes on in the face of massively underfunded
pensions and continual increased borrowing as the state’s debt rating is
downgraded.
Q. During this
interview several times you have made reference to Rep. Willis’s voting in
lockstep with the Democrat Party line. Can you expand on that and explain why
you are against Party loyalty?
A. I am not against Party loyalty; it’s what makes for a
vibrant party. But what I am against is one party rule like we have in the
state legislature where partisan politics is the rule at the expense of the tax
payer and employers. Let me give you an example.
CT Mirror,in a
2011 profile of Rep. Willis, reported that she cast herself as a defender of higher education
against the newly elected administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who proposed
and ultimately won legislation consolidating the community colleges and state
university system. In March 2011, Rep. Willis said “she was lobbied by a number
of administration officials, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, to approve
Malloy's bill as written.” As a peace offering, Willis had her committee
approve the governor's bill saying, “I am being very nice. If it was a
Republican governor, I would have given the proposal a hearing, but it wouldn't
have come out of committee.” That’s a pretty clear statement of partisan
prejudice.
Thirty years of
unrestrained one party Democrat rule that continues to spend money we don’t
have is the vicious cycle destroying Connecticut. Until the voters break this
cycle and stop sending people like Willis & Cook back to Hartford,
Connecticut will continue to spiral down.
Q. You paint a picture
that would seem to discourage people like yourself from running for office,
especially against long-term incumbents such as Willis. Why are you taking up
this challenge?
A. You’re right. On the surface it would seem to be an
uphill battle against the Democrats that have owned both the Senate and the
House for over 30 years with virtually no off-setting opposition. With no
restraint, legislators like Willis &Cook have corrupted Connecticut’s
once proud reputation as the “Land of Steady Habits” and made it the “Land of
Steady Tax & Debt Increases.” But in fact there is light at the end of
the tunnel. You probably know that Republican voter registration in Connecticut
is at an all time historic low of 20%. But in the 2010 election just two years
after going deep blue for Obama, the Republican Party won 15 additional seats
in the 151 seat General Assembly. This significant 10% gain was the direct
result of disillusioned Democrat and Unaffiliated voters deciding to restore
fiscal common sense and accountability to our struggling State. Connecticut
voters aren’t stupid. Once they understand the fiscal and economic facts that
define Connecticut as one of the worst states in the nation, they will vote for
fiscal responsibility, which typically means voting for a Republican candidate.
I am that candidate.
I’m taking up this challenge because I love Connecticut.
From our mountains to our shoreline, Connecticut is abundantly blessed with
resources that offer the promise for a rich quality of life. As the gateway to New
England with easy access to Boston and Manhattan, we should be a state that attracts
businesses from across the nation. But the reality is we are failing to deliver
this promise as our one party legislature squanders Connecticut's resources. We
were once one of the greatest states in the nation and we can be again. But
there needs to be real change in how we go about doing this.
Q. What makes you believe this transformation can happen
in Connecticut, which remains a highly unionized non right-to-work state
where the unions and Democrat party have a close working and mutually
supportive relationship?
A. Again, you have to dig below the surface to see what
could be for Connecticut. But you’re right, the Democrat Party and unions—over
32 in Connecticut—have a far too cozy relationship. This was exemplified in
Gov. Malloy’s recent coercive executive order that paved the way for the forced
unionization of Connecticut's in-home health care workers, most of whom are
woman. Because these in-home caregivers are paid, in part, through a subsidized
state program, some of the union dues these workers are forced to pay will
undoubtedly be funneled back as political contributions to union friends in the
Connecticut legislature that made this scheme possible. For the record—yet
again—Representatives Willis & Cook voted YES to this forced
unionization scheme while Senator Roraback voted No.
But don’t believe that everyone in a union wants to be there. In fact, the
recent Wisconsin recall vote proved otherwise. Once Wisconsin’s union members
were free to choose to remain or leave their union, over 50% of them left!
In some unions, it's been even higher. There is no doubt in my mind that given the same choice in Connecticut
something similar would happen. While Union bosses can tell their members how
to vote, in the privacy of the ballot booth those members have free choice and
they are voting differently. This is why the Card Check process in union votes
where union bosses get to see how the worker voted is so corrupt. To reiterate,
the voters aren’t stupid. This is why the Republicans increased their seats in
the General Assembly by 10% and I expect this trend to continue in 2012.
Q. You say that Connecticut government has gotten
too big. How do you define that and what could you do as a legislator to reduce
the size of government?
A. Remember that Connecticut government—and its
employees—produce little to nothing tangible that contributes to Connecticut’s
Gross Domestic [State] Product. Their primary role is to collect 378 taxes and
fees to pay government workers, fund pension plans, cover operating expenses
and wisely re-allocate the surplus for the benefit of the people. With our
taxes, State government has grown to be one of the largest employers in
Connecticut. There are a lot of differing numbers thrown around by the Malloy
administration as to the number of state employees, so I rely upon the
Connecticut Department of Administrative Services’ 2010-2011 Report (see pg 25).
In 1975, Connecticut had 45,000 state employed workers.
According to the Department of Administrative Services, today it takes 87,761
full-time and 13,291 part-time employees—that’s over 100 thousand state paid
workers for a population of just 3.5 million. Why does Connecticut need 27
public employees per thousand residents when Florida—with a population 5 times
that of Connecticut, an older aging population, a bigger minority population
and more infrastructure—needs just 10? The national state average is only 15.
Rather than helping Connecticut's smaller businesses and
entrepreneurs create jobs, Connecticut has essentially become an employment
agency to increase the size of government. As a minority party legislator, the
only thing I can do is be vocal about the problems and vote like Senator
Roraback did against increasing the size of government, taxes and debt. I will
actively pursue a pro-business agenda.
Q. Aren’t taxes a
necessary evil to running government?
A. Of course they are, and there isn’t a state in the union
that doesn’t collect some form of tax to fund itself. However, the degree to
which they tax is one criterion that separates states that are doing well from
states—like Connecticut—that are becoming fiscal disasters.
Out-of-control taxes are like a cancer that eats away at the
heart of a state. Connecticut levies more than 378 taxes and fees generating
over 20 BILLION dollars annually and it’s still not enough for our unrestrained
Democrat legislature. Governor Malloy increased taxes by 2.6 billion dollars.
The sales tax was increased and expanded. Taxes on certain alcoholic beverages
increased twenty percent. The real estate conveyance tax increased fifty
percent. They even put new taxes on nursing homes and care facilities for the
mentally retarded, and started a Patient Revenue Tax on hospitals which, with
the exception of Sharon Hospital, are Non-Profit operations. For the Party that
claims to look after the welfare of the people, how do the Democrats justify
taxing Connecticut's vital service providers thus making it more difficult for
them to deliver their services to our most vulnerable citizens?
Q. You keep referring to Connecticut as a fiscal
disaster when in fact it remains one of wealthiest state in America, if not the
# 1 wealthiest. How do you justify that statement?
A. For too long Connecticut's legislators have gotten a free
pass simply because Connecticut remains one of the wealthiest states in America
with some of the highest per capita incomes. Greenwich, for example, is America’s
# 1 wealthiest city amongst those with populations over 50,000, and is home to
8 of Connecticut's 11 billionaires who have a combined net worth in excess of
35 billion dollars. Connecticut's wealth is the GOLDEN GOOSE that our
unrestrained tax and spend legislators seem intent upon driving out. But Connecticut residents—especially the
wealthy—have options and they are leaving. Between 2000 and 2010, nearly 98
thousand people abandoned Connecticut going
to states like Florida, which has no state income tax, no retirement
income tax, no inheritance tax and a limited estate tax.
In the face of reality—and despite the fact that Connecticut’s
Department of Revenue Services supports the elimination of the estate
tax—Governor Malloy lowered the estate and gift tax thresholds from $3.5
million to $2 million and kept the rate at 12 percent. This guarantees
Connecticut will remain uncompetitive to America’s fastest growing tax friendly
states.
Q. Is there any
specific legislation you would want to propose if you are elected to the State
Legislature?
A. Absolutely. I will tell you about one on which Rep.
Willis would vote NO.
I support a right which Connecticut citizens do not have,
but to date is the law in thirty one states. That is the right for citizens’
ballot initiative, referendum and recall. This citizen right—direct democracy—
gives voters the power to make laws, repeal laws and remove elected officials
from office.
In the 2010 state elections, gubernatorial candidates
Republican Tom Foley and Independent Tom Marsh and the Green and Libertarian
Parties endorsed Connecticut having this right. In the 2010 election debate
between Rep. Willis and Republican challenger Lauretano, despite the fact that
a Rasmussen Poll of Connecticut voters found that 65 percent were in favor of
this right, Willis emphatically stated she was against the citizens of
Connecticut having it. More than half the Republican legislative candidates
endorsed it as the entire Democratic establishment—including Rep.
Willis—ignored it.
A good example of why Connecticut citizens needs it enacted
is the recent GMO labeling bill HB 5117 - An Act Concerning Genetically
Engineered Food, which over 90% of Connecticut’s residents favored. According
to the Institute for Responsible Technology, “before the bill had a chance to make it to the floor for debate and a
vote, in a closed door meeting, Governor Malloy and his attorneys interfered in
the legislative process by removing Section 2 of the bill. Section 2 was the
heart of the bill, the section that called for mandatory labeling of all
products produced with the process of genetic engineering, leaving HB 5117
meaningless.”
Need I say more?
Q. I think you have
given the voters of the 64th District -- and perhaps many others -- a pretty clear idea of where
you stand versus your Democrat opponent. Is there anything you want to say in
closing this interview?
A. I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to delineate some of the differences between me and Representative Willis. I will close by asking the 64th’s new towns—Norfolk, Canaan, North Canaan and Kent—to stay their course by electing a Republican to carry on in place of Republican Representatives Richard Smith and John Rigby who, because of redistricting into the 64th District, will no longer be representing them.
Electing Democrat Representative Willis is not in their best
interest if they want to see Connecticut return to its past prominence as one
of the nation’s great states in which to work, live and raise a family. We need
to continue the trend of electing more Republicans who believe in fiscal
responsibility while administering the right amount of government—not more
government and taxes—to restore prosperity.
By the way, getting back to that Churchill statement about
politicians, he said the second desirable trait in a politician was having the
ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.
Governor Malloy won’t balance the budget before year end
without more trickery and broken promises. He can’t stop increasing debt
because the Democrats won’t reduce spending. No doubt in the next election
he’ll have plenty of reasons why he couldn’t do it in his first term as
promised, but will do it in his next term; and that’s a promise!
I hope the voters of the 64thDistrict will
remember: Fool you once, shame on Danno. Fool you twice, shame on yourself for
being so gullible.
Lastly, the political cronyism that frankly has afflicted
both political parties started immediately with Malloy when right after the
2010 elections several Democrat legislators resigned to take positions
with his administration. It was the old
political game of substantially increasing your last few years of salary to
receive a substantial life time pension paid for by the tax payer. Talk about right in your face political
stink!
Every town affected by these post-election resignations had
to organize and fund another costly special election almost immediately
following the general election. Too many of these career politicians have no
scruples when it comes to putting themselves above those who pay their
salaries. So it should also come as no
surprise that most of the funds this administration is spending on developing
business and jobs are going to larger corporations that frankly don’t need it,
but take it because it’s there for the taking.
And in too many cases the executives and owner of these large
corporations have influence with the politicians that CT’s hundreds of
thousands of small business owner’s lack.
Is it any wonder that the productive tax payer and the small business
person or company is looking at greener pastures in far friendlier states?
Comments