Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

Judy Aron, FCTO Board Member:� Tell Governor Rell to Veto the Bill Giving Tuition Breaks to Illegal Aliens
Danbury News Article re Taxpayer Revolt features comments by FCTO President
State Legislator, New London Activists and Others Speak Out Against Recent CT Eminent Domain Legislation

*********

From Judy Aron, imjfaron@sbcglobal.net

Vice President of the West Hartford Taxpayers Association and

Board Member of FCTO

In State Tutition Breaks For Illegal Aliens Passes IN CT - Governor Rell... Veto This Bill !

That about does it - these lawmakers brought a bill forth, HB5656, to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition breaks in post-secondary schools in CT, and let bills die that would have helped children of those killed in the military to obtain a post-secondary education! They could have passed legislation to fund college tuition and ensure space at public institutions of higher education in this state for veterans whose tuition assistance from the military has been exhausted - but they choose to give in-state tuition breaks to illegal aliens instead.

That is disgraceful!

If you live in CT - Please call Governor Rell's office today and tell her to VETO THIS BILL -
Call her at 860-566-4840 or toll free at 1-800-406-1527
and while you are at it - let her know how the Department of Education and DCF are conspiring to take children away from families who have decided to homeschool.)

Not only does this in-state tuition bill for illegal aliens reward illegal activity, but by approving this legislation in CT, legislators essentially eliminated higher out of state tuition price for ANYONE because they are by federal law not allowed to allow illegals to take in-state tuition breaks while a citizen from another state is made to pay more. This may affect our college's incomes adversely, and they may lose millions of dollars in revenue as a result!! More money for the taxpayer to have to subsidize!

Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State ... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."

Giving in-state college tuition to adult illegal aliens residing in each state would give them benefits not given to American citizens in other states ( e.g., war veterans). A 1996 Federal law mandates that if instate rates are given to illegals, those rates must also be given to all applicants of each state's colleges and universities from the other 49 states. Although the law is not actively enforced, giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is a clear violation of federal law.

Allowing illegal immigrants to get extra special benefits like this is a slap in the face to immigrants who have come here and did so legally. While I understand that some of these kids are not here through any fault of their own, they have an obligation to follow the law, just as other immigrants have done.

The Governor MUST veto this legislation. First and foremost, we should not reward people for breaking the law and our lawmakers are obligated to follow federal law as well. If this legislation stands then we will have to eliminate any higher tuition for any other legal resident of this country just to be fair, and in order to obey federal law.

The bill says this:

AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION.
A person, other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in 8 USC 1101(a)(15), shall be entitled to classification as an in-state student for tuition purposes, (A) if such person (i) resides in this state, (ii) attended any educational institution in this state and completed at least four years of high school level education in this state, (iii) graduated from a high school in this state, or the equivalent thereof, and (iv) is registered as an entering student, or is enrolled at a public institution of higher education in this state, and (B) if such person is without legal immigration status, such person files an affidavit with the institution of higher education stating that he or she has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file such an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.

An article in the New York Times said this:

Illegal immigrants who graduate from Connecticut high schools will be eligible for the resident tuition rate at the state�s public universities and colleges if the governor signs a bill that the Senate narrowly passed on Friday.

Connecticut would join 10 other states, including New York, that allow illegal immigrants to pay the in-state rate that is available to other residents. Illegal immigrants now often pay twice as much to attend Connecticut�s taxpayer-supported colleges and universities.

The Senate approved the bill, 20 to 15, after a three-hour debate in which several Republicans vigorously argued against the measure, saying that it would reward illegal activity. The debate in the House was similarly heated before the bill passed, 76 to 67, on May 17, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to vote against the measure.

�What we�re doing here today is trying to incorporate some kids who, through no fault of their own, have arrived in our communities,� said Jonathan Harris, a Democrat from West Hartford who was the bill�s lead sponsor in the Senate. �They reside in our state. They�ve gone to four years of high school. They�ve demonstrated the acumen and the academic success.�

Like most states, Connecticut gives its residents a substantial discount on tuition at publicly supported colleges and universities. For example, the in-state tuition rate per semester at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain is $3,367. Out-of-state students pay $7,727.

Backers of the bill said that the legislation would benefit about 250 of the 109,000 students enrolled in Connecticut�s public colleges and universities.

Much of the debate in the Senate on Friday focused on whether the bill would give illegal immigrants what opponents called �special benefits.�

�It is a reward for illegal behavior that we should not be sanctioning,� said Daniel Debicella, a Republican from Shelton. �This bill makes a fundamental assumption that illegal immigration is O.K.�

Five amendments sponsored by Republicans, which would have restricted benefits for illegal immigrants on tuition and other matters, were easily defeated.

As the debate came to a close, Senator Edward Gomes, a Democrat from Bridgeport, said the opponents� concerns were misplaced. �These are not people who did something illegal,� he said. �These are people who deserve a chance to be a cornerstone in the community.�

I am ashamed of my Senate Representative Jonathan Harris, who was a lead sponsor of this bill. His comments are a slap in the face to his relatives, and mine, who immigrated here legally and followed the established rules. These kids may be here, but they are here illegally. How they have fared in our public schools has no bearing on their immigration status.

Perhaps legal status and citizenship means nothing to Senator Harris and his colleagues. Perhaps he should tell the legal immigrants in the communities that he represents, why their obtaining legal status to be here or obtaining US citizenship was a waste of time. Perhaps he should have championed legislation to help the children of servicemen and women who desire a post-secondary education instead of rewarding people who have no regard for our laws that those servicemen and women fight to protect and defend.

Please call Governor Rell today! Tell her to veto this bill! Call her at 860-566-4840 or toll free at 1-800-406-1527

**********

Taxpayer revolt

http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1055751&source=tabbox

http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1055751&sc=1#comments

http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1055751&source=tabbox

**********

Locals have had it with property tax increases

By Dirk Perrefort
THE NEWS-TIMES

Some say those "Vote No" signs scattered across the region on front lawns during budget season are a sign of the times -- a taxpayer revolt.

The increasing frequency of municipal budgets failing after several attempts signals a trend, officials said. Some said it's a revolt by taxpayers who have had enough, while others say the property tax system is broken and needs to be repaired.

In Newtown, residents will vote on a proposed town budget for the fourth time Tuesday. The voters will be asked to approve a tax increase of 2.9 percent, while the first referendum in April sought a 5.9 percent increase.

"It's becoming more and more common for it to take several attempts to pass a budget," said Newtown First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, who also serves as president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

"We are one of the top three states in the country that rely on property taxes to fund local services -- No. 1 for education."

He said the state may have reached a "saturation point" for property taxes to be able to cover local expenses, and that voters have had it with annual tax increases.

In New Milford, it took 11 referendums to pass the town's budgets from 2000 to 2003. In Bethel voters went to the polls four times in 2005 and three times last year before a budget was approved.

"It's one of the few things people can control," Rosenthal said. "People can't control the escalating costs of things like gasoline, electricity and medical care. Property tax increases is the one area where they have control."

In Brookfield, voters will take a third crack at approving a budget June 12.

"We have a situation where two-thirds of the budget is education, and 67 percent of people who live in the town don't have children in the school system," Brookfield's First Selectman Jerry Murphy said.

"That's part of the problem. The demographics of area towns show an increasing elderly population. They look at the school budgets as excessive, but that's what it costs to educate our children."

He said that state aid is also a "ticking time bomb" for local budgets. Often local officials don't know what their state aid will be until after the local budgets have been brought before the voters.

This year the state legislature has yet to approve a budget, and there is less than a week left in the legislative session, which ends Wednesday.

Fred Standt, a longtime taxpayer advocate from Brookfield, said revaluations are part of the picture.

"Town officials are telling the residents that the revaluation has nothing to do with the budget. While that may be true, I don't believe it," he said. "For those who are seeing their taxes increase, the reval has a lot to do with it."

He said that a return of county government could also help Connecticut taxpayers. In other states, he said, the county government pays for education costs and road improvements.

Susan Kniep, president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations Inc., said at the heart of the issue is a taxpayer revolt and a war between those who work in the public and private sectors.

"There is a war between those in the private sector and employees of the public sector, who are safeguarded by union contracts and guaranteed wage increases," she said.

"There are people in the private sector going to work every day wondering if they are going to get a pay cut. They may be happy with the bad news as long as they don't get fired."

Kniep, who was the mayor of East Hartford from 1989 to 1993, said taxpayers who work in the private sector, many without health insurance, are paying for the health insurance for municipal employees, who receive health benefits for life.

About 75 to 85 percent of property taxes are used to pay personnel-related expenses, she said.

"Property taxes are an unfair system that has to be reformed," she added. "People are taxed on unrealized capital gains. We are taxed as if we sold a stock and now the government wants a portion of it.

"We are taxed as if we have this asset on hand that we can do something with, and we can't -- unless we can't pay our taxes and the government takes the property through a tax lien."

Kniep said local officials should call on the state to give towns a portion of the sales tax for any new retailers that open up shop in their municipality.

"Why can't we keep a portion of the sales tax?" she asked. "These commercial enterprises are using local resources, such as the police departments, fire departments and public works departments."

Rosenthal said some states, including Maryland and New Jersey, impose a fee on developers that towns can use to pay for the cost of improving infrastructure, such as sewer lines and roads.

"Connecticut has looked at the idea in the past, but it's never been embraced," he said. "Another option that the state could look at is allowing municipalities to have some form of a local income tax. It would be a fairer tax, because it would be based on a person's ability to pay."

While officials and taxpayer advocates may disagree on what is causing the problem, they all agree that something has to be done.

"I don't have the solution, but we need to do something," Rosenthal said. "We have to start looking at some creative solutions."

Contact Dirk Perrefort at dperrefort@newstimes.com� or at (203) 731-3358.

*****************

Many have commented on the above article.� Click to read their posts.� http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1055751&sc=1#comments

Here is one which many can agree with�.

Posted by: The Plain Truth Sun, Jun 03 2007
Good for the tax payers! The revolt, need turn into a revolution. A country that was founded in a tax revolt against a repressive imperial r�gime that imposed taxation without representation has become an entrenched version of just that aberration. Corporations and uber-capitalists dictate government policy and well �paid�, in its many varied and unscrupulous forms, professional elected officials push those policies through the corrupted system. You have all seen the evidence of it, felt its effects, suffered it consequences.

�If you don�t like it get out and vote! Your vote counts!� Does it really? Does anyone really believe that anymore? The professional politicians lie to your faces when courting your vote then in the enshrined halls of �our� government do the bidding of their corporate masters & uber-capitalist leash holders, accumulate riches for themselves, and enrich their buddies. Money is God! Greed is Good! Can anyone name one politician who has not retired from their career infinitely better off than when they started?

Property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, usage taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, refuse taxes, sewage taxes, excise taxes, regulatory recovery fees, state, local, & federal income taxes the list goes on and on and on. Good for those organizing these tax revolts! The town/city government is one of the last places were there is a semblance of a �Government of the people, by the people, and for the people�� any longer in this country and perhaps from it will spring the new revolution; one sorely need and one perhaps who�s time has finally come.

************

CONNECTICUT�S EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION

Click to Read �. Lawmakers Tackle Controversies; Legislation Restricts Seizure Of Private Property.��

********

A Connecticut Lawmaker speaks out �� The bottom line is even after the passage of this bill, my home, your home, your grandparents' home, could very well be taken by eminent domain, said state Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, R-Somers.

********

Click to Read �. An Eminent, Imminent Failure (CT Legislature's 'Reform' Is Inadquate) By TBlumer�� (one of the final two Kelo holdouts Michael) Cristofaro said he was glad state lawmakers were finally debating an eminent domain bill on the House floor, but he believes it does not do enough to protect homeowners. ...

********

NEW LONDON ACTIVISTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST CT EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION��

From:� Doug Schwartz thedougschwartz@gmail.com

New London Resident and Activist Against Eminent Domain Abuse

The legislature's eminent domain �reform� bill isn't. It does little to prevent the problem, and is a transparent effort of going through the motions of reform while protecting the status quo. Connecticut will still allow private-to-private property transfers. This means that if your friendly local developer bribes two-thirds of your municipal legislators, the project will now pass muster. Before, developers were only required to bribe a simple majority of your town's leaders. Nothing in this bill would have prevented what happened to the New London homeowners who took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The public hearings this bill and the existing law requires are simply shams. In New London, the New London Development Corporation [NLDC] packed the hearings with their mostly out-of-town contractors. Even though a majority of the speakers at these hearings were both New London citizens and opposed to the takings, the City and the NLDC ignored their pleas and took the homes anyways. Public hearings are simply therapy sessions which protect no one's property rights.

The law improves a few things. It provides for 125% of fair market value for compensation, but this is meaningless in that Connecticut is one of but two states which deny its citizens the right to a jury trial to determine just what fair market value is. It updates relocation benefits, which had not been altered in about 35 years. However, the new levels are still woefully inadequate.

The process by which this bill was rammed through this week was fraught with corruption. One state senator lied to another when she inquired if this bill would have prevented the New London takings - and he said it would have. That same senator's law firm, as well as the firm of at least one other senator, have benefited directly and handsomely from the NLDC's expenditures of your state taxes. A third senator is the executive director of the Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation, that city's version of the NLDC. Many valiant efforts were made by a number of senators and representatives to amend this bill and include real reforms. Each attempt was shot down by those who have aligned with the special interests. In the words of state rep. Steve Mikutel, "It does not protect the American dream of home ownership. Government confiscation of the family home goes against everything America stands for. It strikes at the core of our liberty."

This bill will surely be signed by the Governor, who, like the new Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the legislative leadership, have made it clear which side of this debate they are aligned with. This bill is empty rhetoric in response to the June 2005 Kelo decision by the Supreme Court. Since then 38 states have revised their laws to install property rights protections. Around 9 states had adequate protections to begin with. This leaves Connecticut as one of the very few which abhor freedom and refuse to uphold this basic civil right. During many long hours of hearings before the legislature, not one member of the public came forward to support the government's right to seize your home, business or farm. The only ones who did so where those representing the government. No one is being fooled here.

A vast wasteland had been created by the NLDC along the Thames River, which is common with these redevelopment projects. No plans exist for the land occupied by Susette Kelo's home and most of the other plaintiffs' homes. Yet she has until later this month to move it off what used to be her land or face demolition. Five years ago, the original trail court judge threw out most of the takings because no one could explain why the homes were being taken. We still don't know. We do know that one day after Pfizer voted to locate into the neighborhood in 1998,� NLDC's realtors arrived threatening the homeowners with eminent domain. This new bill still allows the special interests to steal your home.

********

Kathleen Mitchell, Orkenizer44@aol.com

New London Resident and Activist Against Eminent Domain Abuse

I agree that the recent eminent domain bill approved by the Connecticut Legislature does little or nothing to protect the homeowner from the taking of his home by eminent domain.

Frankly, it seems like more of the same legislation presented by our legislators to the residents in hopes that it will quiet us down and allow for continued use of economic development as a tool to rob people of their homes and, in some cases, their livelihoods.

As anyone who has read the news regarding this bill knows, an amendment which would prevent the taking of owner-occupied dwellings for economic purposes failed narrowly on a 72-67 vote.

This should come as no surprise as many legislators, including our own here in SECT, Senator Stillman and Rep. Ernest Hewett, continue to do what they can to defend big business at the expense of the "little guy".

�

Rep. Hewett rode into office on the donations of members of the New London Development Corporation. Senator Stillman, whose family owns Solomon's Office Supplies, does a great deal of business with the city of New London...$80,000. in one year.

Does this have anything to do with their continued support of economic development in eminent domain cases?

I suspect so. Voters may be kidded into thinking that their collective voices mean something but, in the final analysis, it is big business that pays for the return of unworthy politicians.

A friend once told me that "If I keep on doing what I've always done, I'm going to keep on getting what I always got(ten)".

Having worked with the families of Fort Trumbull for close to 9 years, I can assure you that if our representatives had followed the will of the people, the Fort Trumbull neighborhood would still be standing.

Until voters stand up in numbers and stop doing what they've always done, we, the residents of Connecticut, are going to continue being at the mercy of politicians whose first allegiance is to those who pay their bills.

************