From: Susan Kniep,
President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
January 7, 2006
WELCOME TO THE 62nd EDITION OF
TAX TALK
CORRUPTION –
LOBBYISTS - INFLUENCE BUYING – POWER - WASHINGTON
Turn to THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx to gain insight into what appears to be a standard of
operation which our tax dollars have been supporting - http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/report.aspx?aid=763
*****
ARTICLE IN TODAY'S JOURNAL INQUIRER OF MANCHESTER (not yet posted
on the net) … SEC COMPLAINT AGAINST DIBELLA TO MOVE FORWARD. A federal judge in New Haven has denied a bid by long time
political power broker, William E. Dibella, to
dismiss a fraud complaint lodged against him by the Securities and Exchange
Commission two years ago. Article written by Don Michak, reporter for the Journal Inquirer of Manchester, on January 7, 2005, page 19.
*****
From Mike Telesca,
teleman2@aol.com, Waterbury,
JOIN A NATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL, Sunday, JANUARY, 15, 2006, 7:00 PM EST, "IS THERE AN
INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT? YOU BET!", A NATIONAL CONFERENCE
CALL FOR INDEPENDENTS WITH JACKIE SALIT,
Start the New Year with Independents from around the country. Call in # -
605-990-0200; Access Code: 538765# , Please make a reservation to join the call.
To reserve a spot please contact Nancy Ross at national@cuip.org or call
800-288-3201/212-609-2800.
******
Lawmakers
considering tinkering with electric deregulation law By
SUSAN HAIGH AP Political Writer January 2, 2006,
8:46 PM EST HARTFORD, Conn. -- Last week's
news of double-digit electric rate increases in Connecticut is prompting some
at the state Capitol to consider what, if anything, the legislature can do in
the next session to soften the blow to rate-payers. Connecticut Light & Power's 22.4 percent
increase comes about seven years after the legislature passed a far-reaching
law that deregulated the state's electric utility industry in hopes of lowering
rates for residents and businesses, ending electric monopolies and bringing
more power plants into the state. Continued
at the following website …. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--electricrates0102jan02,0,79482.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut
Now let’s take a walk down memory lane to DEREGULATION:
Feb 9, 1998 - Blumenthal Praises Electric
Deregulation Bill and Urges Stronger Protections For Ratepayers http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1773&Q=282750
1997 - How corporate lobbyists are shaping
the fate of Connecticut's
electric industry http://old.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/power.html
Connecticut Cool to Power Utility's Rate Hike
Request 11/21; State Attorney General
Wants Denial of Utility's Rate Increase Request
11/13; NRG, CL&P Settle Power
Purchase Dispute 11/12; FERC Upholds CL&P, NRG
Energy Inc. Power Contract 10/7; AARP Seeks to Join Case Against CL&P Rate
Hike 9/16; Connecticut Regulators Ask FERC for
Transmission Cost-Sharing 9/11
******
Jim Hoover, Vernon, jim.hoover@sbcglobal.net
January 3, Wall Street
Journal Opinion Page
Teachers'
Pets: The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal
groups last year. If we told you that an organization gave away more than
$65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and
Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of
other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal
philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial
disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest
teachers union. Under new federal rules
pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now
disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor
fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and
even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent
filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the
union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do
with teachers, much less students. We
already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year.
The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half
of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only
$48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the
classroom. Many of the organization's disbursements--$30,000 to the Central
Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching
Quality--at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational
mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000
to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center,
whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing
Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And
something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably
to defeat personal investment accounts.
The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took
effect this year. "What wasn't clear before is how much of a part the
teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic
Party," says Mike Antonucci of the Education
Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. "They're like some
philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest
groups."
There's been a lot in the news recently about published
opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to
the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim
education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid.
The partisans at People for the American
Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens
to be vehemently anti-voucher.
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for
political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools,
an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state
affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for
underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public
schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the
construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a
more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from
NEA headquarters. When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his
own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told
their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions.
According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the
union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and
lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and
grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political
goals. The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their
union chieftains did their political thinking for them, by going to www.union-reports.dol.gov,
where the Labor Department has posted the details.
Union officials claim that they favored such transparency
all along, but the truth is they fought the new rules hard in both Congress and
the courts. Originally, the AFL-CIO said detailed disclosures were too
expensive, citing compliance costs in excess of $1 billion. The final bill
turned out to be $54,000, or half of what the unions spent on litigation
fighting the new requirements. When Secretary Chao refused to back down, the
unions took her to court, and lost. It's
well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee.
(Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union's rank-and-file
stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money
that comes out of their pockets.
******
Refer below for information on the lucrative
TAXPAYER-FINANCED
MAILING PRIVILEGES OF STATE LEGISLATORS
******
Governor Rell: State Surplus Up $21
Million from Last Month:
Dec 21, 2005 - Citing upticks in personal income and
corporate tax revenue growth, Governor M. Jodi Rell
today announced that the state Office of Policy and Management’s (OPM)
projected General Fund surplus of approximately $327.8 million demonstrates
that the state’s economy continues to rebound and grow. Continued at the following website: http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?Q=307958&A=1761
******
Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts, Lobbyist to Testify
About Lawmakers In Corruption Probe, By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi,
Washington Post Staff Writers, January 4, 2006; Page A01: Jack Abramoff, the
once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption
investigation, pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to
bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about
members of Congress. Continued at this website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html and http://search.msn.com/results.asp?search=MSNBC&q=abramoff+site%3Amsnbc.msn.com&submit=Search&id=3053419&FORM=AE
; http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0105-34.htm ; http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15883041&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6
Abramoff: The Connecticut Connection: Four from Connecticut Received
Money Linked to Abramoff http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15883367&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8
******
Eminent Domain Articles
1. Constitutional
changes eyed as new hurdles for eminent domain, PAUL DAVENPORT, The Associated
Press, Jan 3, 2006, PHOENIX - A legislative committee chairman on Tuesday proposed
two amendments to the Arizona
Constitution and offered other legislation to bolster private property owners'
protections from forced purchase by governments. Continued at the following website: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breakingnews/010306eminent_domain
2.
Governments Address Kelo Backlash, By: James Hoare, Published In: Environment News, January
1, 2006, Publisher: The Heartland Institute Refer
to the following website: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18253
3. Property Rights
Receive Pre-session Attention: By Jason Mercier, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Jan 6, 2006 … The 2006
legislative session gets underway on January 9, but there are already two bills
pre-filed addressing property rights. One bill (HB 2427) is in response to last
year's devastating eminent domain ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The other bill
(HJR 4214) is a constitutional amendment capping the increase in a home's
assessed value at one percent. Eminent Domain: The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution prohibits the taking of private property by the government unless
it is for a public use and the
owner receives just compensation. Prior to last year, the term "public
use" referred to projects such as public roads, schools, etc. The taking
of private property by the government to then turn that property over to
another private entity was not a widely acceptable practice. The Supreme
Court's 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London changed that.
The decision permits governments to seize private property for private
development even when that property is not "put into use for the general
public. Continued at the following
website: http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=1317&number=56
hanged
******
Ray Chicoine, RDChicoine@msn.com
Coventry, Jan 1, 2005
Two Subjects Re
Coventry: (1) Nonresidents can
vote on Budget Referendum; (2) Coventry
Republicans took control of Town Council and Board of Ed
Hi Sue: In answer
to the question regarding non resident property owners to vote in the budget
referendum, In Coventry
it is permitted as long as the property is assessed at $1,000 or more.
This would allow those people who own raw land or those who own rental property
residing out of town, the opportunity to vote on town budgets.
On another issue, the Republican Party made a clean
sweep in the Town of Coventry
in the past November elections. We regained control of the town
council (my wife Phyllis was also elected)
with a 5-2 majority and control of the board of Education with a 4-3
majority. Already we
have stopped spending above what was approved in the previously approved budget
in October and have taken steps to conserve energy in the schools and town
offices. Several years ago the Democratic Town Council cut out middle
school sports at the third budget rejection forcing the soccer moms to come out
in force. They cut out some $8,000 for school sports even though the town
had a $500,000 surplus. That year the budget passed with a 4% tax increase. This year was no different. Initially
they proposed a 12% tax increase on top of a town wide reevaluation in which
some properties increased by over 50%.
At the second budget rejection in June 2005, they
cut school sports again. Children were parading outside
the polling places in July pleading for the budget to be
passed. There was a rally at the Meadowbrook shopping center in
October using the children in which the budget was finally passed. The
budget that was passed was the same one presented in September with out any
changes with a 8.24% tax increase.
They did some fuzzy accounting in which they were able to
inflate the previous 2003 grand list so the new 2004 grand didn't look
so bad. In reality they proposed a 8.24 % tax increase but they were saying
it was only a 4% tax increase. I made a presentation to the old council
describing how the property reevaluation in the lake area got hit really
hard. Town wide property went up by 33% but in the lake area the average
was 39% with one association at 44% and another at 49% increase. At lot of people
were angry with the old council; because of their arrogance. We used the
tax issue against them and had a number of quotes the council made during
the last two years. When the Democrat candidates went out door to door
campaigning, they were bombarded by these quotes. You can't imagine how
angry they were. The town council has
seven members and has a limit of five from the majority party and a
minimum of two from the minority party. The board of ed is similar
but has four from the majority and three from the minority party So the lowest vote getter of the Republicans
had more votes than the highest vote getter of the Democrats. One of the first things we did was to start
to conserve energy. The heat was turned down and computers turned
off at night and now we are looking at turning off unnecessary
lights. These are starters. We have a business man on the
finance committee and he is real sharp.
With this 8% tax increase we hope to have a zero or close to zero tax
increase next year. Past practice showed the town would accept a 4%
increase but not 8. Should be a
fun year Wish us luck. Happy New Year. Ray Chicoine
******
gcgreve@msn.com
Jan 2, 2005
Voting Qualifications
In response to your request for information about
which Town's allow voting by "non- residents, (below) the
statute immediately following this e-mail is the legal basis for this
approach. I believe it applies to ALL
CT municipalities----Charter and non-Charter
communities alike. The technical
distinction in the statutes is between "electors"- those registered
to vote in all elections- and "property owners" who can vote on
specific items only but CAN NOT vote as electors ( ie
can not vote for First Selectman etc). Property owners can vote on tax issues
AND ALL ITEMS THAT GO TO REFERENDUM.
The only limit on a property voter is that no matter how many
properties they own, they still only get one vote. That makes sense. As does
the practice that an elector who is also a property voter only gets one
vote...they can chose whether to vote as an elector or as a property voter ( in
our town they are tracked separately). gary
greve....Save Westbrook
Sec.
7-6. Eligibility to vote. At any town meeting other
than a regular or special town election or at any meeting of any fire, sewer or
school district or any other municipal subdivision of any town incorporated by
any special act, any person who is an elector of such town may vote and any citizen of the United States of the
age of eighteen years or more who, jointly or severally, is liable to the town,
district or subdivision for taxes assessed against him on an assessment of not
less than one thousand dollars on the last-completed grand list of such town,
district or subdivision, or who would be so liable if not
entitled to an exemption under subdivision (17), (19), (22), (23), (25) or (26)
of section 12-81, may vote, unless restricted by the provisions of any special
act relating to such town, district or subdivision
******
To all who forwarded to me the following
press release. Thank you. Sue Kniep
Press
release- For Immediate Release- December 28, 2005
Contact: Tim McKee, CT Green Party National Committee Person,
(860) 643-2282 or cell (860) 324-1684
Mike DeRosa, State Co-Chair (860)956-8170 or
(860) 919-4042 (cell)
CT. GREENS VOTE TO SUE OVER
NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LAWS
Portland, CT- At its state meeting, Tuesday, December 27, at the Portland
Public Library, the state leaders of the Green Party of Connecticut voted last
night to sue over the new Campaign Finance Reform law that sets huge signatures
petition drives ONLY for third parties to qualify for state public financing,
and met with Cliff Thornton about a possible run for Governor. Tim McKee, Green Party National Committee person
said "We are now looking at suing over these unfair laws that punish
Independents and the Green Party candidates with having to collect over 200,000
additional signatures or 20% of the state voting lists to qualify for public
funding of campaigns for Governor. We voted to talk to lawyers and discuss our
other options, and hope the General Assembly quickly changes this provision in
this upcoming short G. A. session before we have to go to
court." Continued at the following website: http://www.gp.org/press/states/ct_2005_12_28.shtml
******
PLEASE SUPPORT
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations, Inc. (FCTO)
Your donation can be mailed to FCTO, Treasurer, Bernie
Ro, 162 Putting Green Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611
A Message from Susan Kniep,
President of FCTO - We continue to ask
for your support of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations,
Inc. (FCTO). Your contribution to the Federation is
voluntary and dedicated exclusively to mailings, our website, and
supplies. We are a 501c4 organization
and have no paid staff.
This is
unlike the recently passed Campaign Finance Laws which you are now forced to
finance. These laws are flawed in that
the public is not only paying to finance future campaigns beginning in 2008 but
unreasonable restrictions are placed on third party candidates to access these
funds. Further, the campaign finance
bill does not eliminate PACs, but instead allows the four legislative caucuses
to retain three leadership PACs to which contractors and others can donate and
from which money can be channeled to candidates. Also, legislators can continue to maintain
personal PACs.
Yet, public
financing of political campaigns for incumbents in the state legislature is
nothing new. It is guised as “mailing
privileges” wherein each legislator, at the state taxpayers’ expense, is
allowed to send out mass mailings to their constituents throughout the
year. If you have received these
mailings, you have seen that there is a fine line between the information they
provide and campaign literature. This
perk should end, and state legislators should be expected to disseminate
information to their constituents through other resources to include local
legislative meetings and the news media.
The State Statutes on Mailing Privileges can be found at
the following website… http://www.cga.ct.gov/olm/guides/guide/admin.htm#mail
Here are some
facts provided by the State on the mailing privileges of our State elected
legislators … Each State Rep is
allowed 500 pieces a week plus 3,125 annually over that amount. This equates to
29,125 pieces of mail annually for each State Rep. Each State Senator is allowed 1,000 pieces a
week plus 12,500 over that annually. This equates to 64,500 pieces of mail
annually for each State Senator. The
postage for these mailings was budgeted at $1.0 million in 2004. This year $1.2 million is budgeted. Of the four caucuses, each caucus is
responsible for the production of the weekly mailers they issue. The cost is
absorbed within their total budgeted amount. Production of annual district-wide
mailers is paid by Office of Legislative Management. Postage for all mass mailings is paid by
OLM, as stated above. Some caucuses do
the entire weekly mailers with outside vendors, some do a partial amount with
outside vendors and one caucus does the entire process in house. District-wide
mailers are all developed by outside contractors. The total outside printing
costs for the caucus weekly mailers was $65,197 for last fiscal year. For the
district-wide mailers, the current fiscal year projection is $242,270. Keep in mind that these costs do not include
the personnel paid by State tax dollars to facilitate these mailings.
Thank you for
your continued support of the Federation.
We will soon be announcing our next meeting and look forward to your
attendance.
Susan Kniep, President,
Website http://ctact.org/
, email fctopresident@ctact.org,
860-524-6501