Just when you think the General Assembly can't outdo itself with inane legislation - see clotheslines and witches - this "deliberative body" has reached new depths, with word our esteemed elected officials are considering a bill that would outlaw the idling of your car for more than three straight minutes.      
     And if you think the poster child of all stupid laws doesn't have legs, then check the vote count.   The bill, which would lead to a $90 fine, has passed three committees by a combined vote of 74-9.   Even Republicans are supporting it.    A recent transportation committee vote on SB-123, "An Act Prohibiting The Idling of Motor Vehicles," found six GOP members, joining 22 Democrats in supporting the measure.    Three Republicans had the common sense to oppose it, 74th District Rep. Selim Noujaim, 61 District Rep. Ruth Fahrbach and 44th District Rep. Michael Caron.
     Naugatuck Rep. Kevin DelGobbo, a Republican, voted against the measure in the Public Safety and Security Committee, summing it up best, "Talk about the ridiculous things that the General Assembly is deciding it needs to legislate."
     But the most ridiculous statement may have come from fellow Republican, 71st District State Rep. Anthony D'Amelio.    The Waterbury representative said on my afternoon program, even though he would oppose the bill in a full floor vote, he supported it as a Transportation Committee member, because some of his constituants were in favor of the bill, and it deserved to be voted out of committee.   Furthurmore, he added,  "neighbors have told him, trucks are idling for considerable time at truck stops, polluting the air, and cars are making loud noise and polluting the air, while standing idle in parking lots, contributing to the asthma problem in Waterbury."
    Who knew we were facing such a crisis?   Trucks idling at a truck stop.   What's next?  Road races at a racetrack?    Baseball games in a ballpark?   People might be skiing down mountains, if we don't watch out.
    Besides, aren't there already state laws and town ordinances on the books to protect the public against extensive idling, if a car is making too much noise, disturbing the neighbors?   Yes, there is.   But this isn't about noise.    This is about the liberal agenda.   And when Republicans support it, as six did on the Transportation Committee, they contribute to the dispair, which marks the Connecticut GOP.  Voters want a choice, and Rep. D'Amelio and his ilk are not providing one.
    Do you think that the co-chairs of the Judiciary committee, Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, cared about any constituents, who supported "three strikes and your out," when they prevented it from being voted out of committee?   They made sure the bill wouldn't see the light of day.
   That the idling bill is already on the books, but can only be enforced by the Department of Environmental Protection, is itself disconcerting.   SB-123, would transfer authority of enforcing the law to state and local police.   As if they don't have enough to do.   Lawmakers should be talking about wiping the law off the books, not expanding its enforcement.   Naturally, government-owned vehicles would be exempt from the new law.
    And make no mistake, the global warming crowd is behind this latest effort to abridge our freedoms.    If successful, they'll come after your snowblower and lawn mower next.   So while homes are being invaded, lives being lost, and illegal immigrants are overrunning our state, the liberal-controlled legislature is worried about motors idling for more than three minutes, clotheslines and witches.   The only thing that deserves to be rendered idle, is our own state legislature.   And it should be longer than three minutes.
   

      Sunday's home invasion in New Britain, leading to the fatal shooting of Mary Ellen Welsh and the wounding of her friend Carol Larese, by suspect Leslie Williams, has once again ignited a political firestorm at the State Legislature.    Governor M. Jodi Rell and Republicans are calling for a tougher "three strikes and your out" law, while Democrats are opposed to it on the grounds it takes away the descretionary sentencing so prized by our judges.   
     This combustible topic, has placed the Democrats on the defensive - as well it should - for being soft on crime.   But in reality, while the Governor makes the radio talkshow rounds, touting her three strikes effort, she and the Republicans are missing a golden opportunity, to present a more comprehensive reform package, which would really paint the Democrats into a corner and set the stage for Republican gains in both chambers of the General Assembly in November.    In reality, what the Governor should have done, was deliver a prime time address on statewide radio and television, before finding her comfort zone with the talkers, who offer her a friendly venue.    To that end, with state residents all ears, here's the address that should be given by the Governor.
 
     "I thought we could make incremental steps in reforming our state's criminal justice system, in the wake of the horrific home invasion and subsequent triple homicide of the Pettit family in Cheshire last summer.   But apparently, we haven't gone far enough.
 
      The latest home invasion and murder of Mary Ellen Welsh and the shooting of Carol Larese, should serve as a wake up call that this state's criminal justice system is in need of more than a tune up.   It requires a massive overhaul, and it's a campaign I'm willing to take to the people of Connecticut between now and election day.
 
      It's time for a true debate on crime in Connecticut.    We need reform that has teeth.   We need minimum mandatory sentencing for judges.   To help prosecutors in plea bargains, we need to rework the voir dire system and streamline the jury selection process.   We have the death penalty on the books in Connecticut.   We need to enforce it.    There is no reason, why we still have inmates on death row for 17 years.    We need to build more prisons and until they are built, I will ship inmates out of state.
 
     I will campaign to every corner of this state, between now and election day, for candidates, who support this reform.   No more commissions.   No more task forces.   This is what I stand for.   Those candidates, who stand for the same, will have my unending support.
 
     We can ask for a tougher "three strikes and your out law" and a more prevelant GPS program.   But in reality, those are just two components of a criminal justice system that needs major attention.    Let three strikes and your out, be the cornerstone of the overall plan, I've just outlined.  
 
     This is my platform.  If voters give me the legislature I need to implement this blueprint, we can make meaningful change.    Then and only then, can we look the people of Connecticut in the eye and tell them we've fixed a system that's broke."
 
     That's the speech the Governor should give, to a statewide audience that's begging for leadership and not political correctness.    There's still time to deliver it.   Then she can talk to all the obsequious talkshow hosts she wants.

    As the General Assembly grinds to a May 7 adjournment date, liberalism is on the march.   From telling you how to run every aspect of your life, to asking for money to pay for it, the left is lobbying Democrats and Republicans alike to advance its agenda.   Unfortunately, even the Republicans are falling prey to this seductive parade, leaving true lovers of less government with nowhere to turn.  

If state Republicans were looking for an issue to regain some power in the General Assembly, they have been handed it by the soft-on-crime Democrats.   On March 19, the legislature's judiciary committee, led by two of the most powerful liberals at the Capital, committee co-chairs Senator Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford and State Representative Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, voted down a Republican bill to toughen the so-called "three strikes and your out law."
 
In what was a proud moment for Republicans and people everywhere, who value their own safety, all 13 GOP members on the panel, along with three Democrats, voted for the bill.   25 Democrats, voted against it.    Two Democrats failed to show for the vote.
 
The heart of the bill, would have removed a judge's discretion in doling out sentences to a third-time violent offender and impose a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.   Except for the committee co-chairs. no Democrat had the backbone to speak out against the bill, choosing to hide behind their liberal base, while hoping the public at large was not paying attention.    But their votes cannot hide.   They are there for all to see, and the fact is the Democrats would rather protect the serious repeat offender than the victims of crime, handing the Republicans a golden issue on which to campaign.  
 
Typically, the liberals wanted to have it both ways, during the bill's debate, appearing tough on crime, while pandering to their supporters, who would set the offenders free.   Representative Lawlor, erected more speed bumps than a high school parking lot, when he offered one excuse after another, why he could not support the bill.   Out of the other side of his mouth, he repeatedly reminded us how tough he was on crime.    Before the vote was taken, his cohort, Sen. McDonald, threw in his two cents, about why he would not support a tougher 'three strikes and your out bill."   And after the vote, the Senator made no attempt at hiding the smirk on his face, having won another one for the George Tsoros crowd.
 
At issue, is the Democrats attempt to protect the many liberal judges they approve, to serve on the bench.    Judges don't want to be ordered by the General Assembly, who's voted into power by the public, on how they should sentence an offender,  which is what this bill would have done    They would rather be held unaccountable, and issue sentences that in many cases coincide with the soft-on-crime Democrats, who believe any criminal can be rehabilitated, even "Son of Sam."    The bill would also remove some of a prosecutor's power to plea bargain, an anathema to the liberal leaning Democrats.
 
Now it's time for the Republicans to fight back in a very public way.    And by all accounts, they will.    Representative William Hamzy, R-Plymouth, and a judiciary committee member, said on my program the Republicans will battle to get "three strikes and your out," included as an amendment, to get all the Democrats on the record on where they stand on crime.
 
Senator Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, another committee member, who spoke so eloquently at the meeting, also promised action, saying those on the panel, who opposed the bill, "voted against what the people of Connecticut want, which is a mandatory minimum sentence for the third time violent felon."
 
The Senator committed to keeping up the pressure, adding, "We will continue to fight the fight, until we succeed, even if it takes us into the next session."
 
By then, the next session may actually have more Republicans, if they campaign into November, on the premise that in the face of a triple homicide in Cheshire, the Democrats chose to pander to their liberal base, by taking a stance that is soft on crime.

Talk about chutzpah.   Senator Christopher Dodd, who got fewer votes than the dogcatcher - and I apologize to that profession for comparing it to the presidential race - when he ran for the Democrat party presidential nomination, apparently will go to any length to gain the White House.   Or at least his Deputy Press Secretary.   (Apparently, the Senator is so important, he needs a Deputy Press Secretary in addition to a Press Secretary.)
 
On February 27, President George W. Bush, saluted  the 2007 World Champion Boston Red Sox at a White House ceremony.    At least, I thought President Bush honored the Red Sox, but you wouldn't know it, if you read the email from the Senator's Deputy Press Secretary.  (By the way, where was the Press Secretary?   At the White House ceremony, leaving the Deputy Press Secretary to send out the email?)
 
Here was the first paragraph of the release:  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today honored the Red Sox for their 2007 World Series championship at a White House ceremony along with President Bush and other members of Congress.
 
Excuse me?   Senator Chris Dodd honored the Red Sox at a White House ceremony?   Where was President Bush?    Did Dodd, who wants to be President so badly, he moved to Iowa for two months, stage a coup overnight to host the White House ceremony?   You would think so, according to the press release from the Deputy Press Secretary?    The President was relegated to the last clause of the sentence in the email.
 
Of course, this is typical Dodd hubris.   When the house organ for Dodd, the Hartford Courant, recently ran yet another front page puff piece about him, this time along the lines of how happy the senator was to be back in his home state, after his failed presidential bid, we were all expected to bow and pay him homage.    In fact, much play was given to Dodd's statement about how "happy I am to wake up in the morning in my own home, looking out at the Connecticut River, instead of the frozen tundra of Iowa."    As if somebody forced Dodd to run for president.    As if everybody lives along the Connecticut River and the state has no frozen tundra of its own.
 
Per usual, Dodd's love affair with his "home" state was shortlived.   Withholding his endorsement of a presidential candidate - as if the Democrat Party was hanging on his every word - until he could read the tea leaves and jump on the bandwagon, the Senator was off to Ohio to endorse Barack Obama.  After interupting his campaign swing to "honor" the Red Sox at the White House, it was on to Texas to campaign for the front runner, all in a shameless bid to be his vice presidential nominee.    One can only imagine Dodd's thoughts.   "Please!  Please, Barack!  Pick me to be your running mate!"
 
Despite his busy workload, Dodd still managed time to criticize the democratic process, slamming Ralph Nadar's latest attempt to be president, claiming the Winsted native's presidential run in 2000 cost the Democrats the White House.   The last I checked, Nadar received more votes for the presidency than Dodd.
 
As for the infamous press release, it concludes with Dodd stating, "I hope we'll meet there (at the White House) again at this time next year to celebrate another Red Sox World Series victory."   I guess, by that time, Dodd presumes he'll be in attendance as the Vice President.  If not, here's hoping New York Yankees fans remember the statement, when this walking billboard for term limits stages yet another Senate reelection campaign in two years.   Of course, by then, maybe Connecticut voters will catch a break, and Dodd will be running for President of Cuba, now that Fidel no longer wants the job.

As gasoline prices in Connecticut continue to rise - Gene Guilford - Executive Director of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association is predicting $4.00 a gallon by the summer- two state Republican lawmakers are attempting to give motorists a break at the pump.   However, their efforts could hit a speed bump, with a liberal General Assembly and a governor who publically professes ignorance on how much tax is placed on gasoline in Connecticut.
 
At issue, is the state's gross receipts tax charged to wholesalers, when fuel is delivered to New Haven harbor, and passed along to consumers at the pumps.   Because it's a percentage tax, the higher the price of fuel, the more revenue the state reaps.   The tax has risen each July 1st, the start of a new fiscal year, and is scheduled for another hike this year from 7 to 7 1/2 percent.     Rising oil prices have pumped millions of unexpected dollars into the state's coffers, contributing to a bulging state surplus of nearly 3 billion dollars over a three year period.    Yet Connecticut residents haven't realized one penny from this windfall.   Instead, state government is using the extra money to prop up the liberals and Governor M. Jodi Rell's beloved social agenda.
 
Now some Republicans are parting ways with their Republican leader, including Representative Lawrence Miller of Stratford and Senator Sam Caligiuri of Waterbury.   Representative Miller is proposing the gross receipts tax be rolled back to 3 percent and Sen. Caligiuri, who tried to get the tax reduced last year, is supporting the effort.
 
"People are getting creamed with energy costs, " Rep. Miller said on my afternoon program. "Give consumers a break."
 
Senator Caligiuri was just as adament, during another guest appearance on the program.  "As a state, we can't control the commodities market that helps drive up the price, but one of the most important things we could do for consumers is give them a tax break.   In fact, we have a moral obligation to the people."
 
Connecticut's excise tax on a gallon of gasoline is 25 cents.    The state's seven percent tax on wholesalers translates to another 19.6 cents per gallon, meaning motorists are paying 44.6 cents per gallon in state taxes, higher than New York, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and New Jersey.
 
Sadly, when Governor Rell was presented with this information, while appearing as a guest on the Brad Davis program, heard mornings on the Talk of Connecticut, her response was "Wow."    The Governor, who enjoys record high approval ratings, then fumbled her answer even more, saying the tax was cut 13 cents per gallon years ago and claiming that most of the money from the gross receipts tax goes toward transportation.    She would have been better served forming another task force to study the issue, rather than answer the question.
 
The fact is, "most of the revenue from the gross receipts tax" doesn't go toward the transportation fund.    More than half of the revenue is earmarked for the general fund, with most of that money steered toward education and social programs.    That's why Rep. Miller is doubtful the legislature will act on his plan.   "The liberals need the money for all the social programs they initiate."
 
Even Senator Caligiuri, who describes himself as an optimist, answered a vehement "No," when I asked him, if he thinks the legislature will tackle the issue.    But he says he will fight to reduce the tax.   "We should not be balancing the state budget on the backs of the consumers."
 
Meanwhile, the Governor would be wise to learn more about the issue, especially when the federal excise tax on gas, which is 18.4 cents per gallon, means motorists, who buy gas in Connecticut are paying 63 cents per gallon in taxes.   If, as Mr. Guilford predicts, gasoline reaches $4.00 per gallon, the tax break motorists get from the cutback, may not be much, but it will be better than nothing.

Big brother is watching you.     That's the appearance, anyway, if Governor M. Jodi Rell's plan to place surveillance cameras on I-95 passes the General Assembly.   Her proposal is to ostensibly stop speeders, but anybody who believes that, also believes there are no steroids in baseball.
 
Read between the lines and it's obvious what the Governor is really after, and it's not speeders.    It's more revenue, so the state can feed its spending addiction.   Taxpayers have had it and elected officials know it.    But in Connecticut, where the liberals and Governor's reelection chances are beholden to public employee unions, budget cuts are an anathma.   As usual, the Governor talks a good game, claiming she's a "fiscal conservative," but her spending plan includes a 4.9 percent increase.   How conservative is that, especially when she's proposing a 3 percent cap on property taxes?
 
The Governor, and even the liberals, understand they can't raise the trademark sales and income taxes anymore, because of the public outcry.    It would be political suicide in an election year.    So they play their surreptitious end game, raising fees, mandating that more jobs require a license - and the prerequisite licensing fee - upping the cable television tax and now proposing cameras on I-95.   
 
The Hartford Courant, which never embraced a tax it didn't love, not only heralds the spy cameras, but proclaims the plan would not be an inconvenience to I-95 speeders.   In an editorial, the liberal mouthpiece stated drivers would be mailed a ticket for driving over the speed limit, and would simply mail back the cost of the fine.    The Courant states the plan is so generous, the ticket would not cost a driver points on his insurance.    Just mail in the money.  How convenient.   You wouldn't even have to go to court.   (Apparently, the Courant hasn't seen its delivery truck drivers, who routinely crush the posted speed limit and are noted for passing on the right, on Avon Mountain, no less ) 
 
But back to the Governor, and why this is really about revenue and not nabbing speeders.   In her budget address, proposing the cameras,   she added "I'm hopeful that this program will prove successful and that we will be able to add additional locations for camera radars in other parts in the state."    You can read that to believe, successful or not, the state will deem the program successful and add cameras elsewhere to raise revenue.
 
To those who say there are already surveillance cameras in banks, public buildings, etc, I say the comparison is not valid.   When was the last time someone was accousted for walking too fast in the legislative office building?    Furthurmore, how would the surveillance program be enforced?    If you're caught doing 66 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, would that merit a ticket?   If supporters say, "no," it would only catch you, if you're driving 70 MPH, then you're telling me the speed limit is 70 MPH and not 65 MPH.    Yet, if you were driving 66 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, now, there's not a trooper in the world who would stop you.    That's why this has nothing to do with speeders and everything to do with revenue.
 
Fortunately, not all lawmakers support this halfbaked idea.     30th District Senator Andrew Roraback, a longtime Republican and member of the judiciary committee, says the trucking industry, which has a major presence in his district, opposes it.    Senator Minority Leader John McKinney, more prone to wave the Governor's flag on these things, says he has concerns - he should as I-95 is part of his district - but is willing to look at the plan.   Ugh!
 
Make no mistake, Governor Rell's proposal is nothing more than Big Brother, trying to raise more revenue to support its socialist agenda.    If she were really a "fiscal conservative," she would cut spending, but that would require taking on the behemouth public employee unions, something this Governor doesn't have the courage to do.

I knew we were in trouble, when two minutes into her budget address, Governor M. Jodi Rell told the gathering of the just convened General Assembly, she wished she could comply with every financial request that comes her way, but that she just can't.    Spoken like a true liberal.    So while the spinmeisters tell us, her tweaking of the spending plan, in the second year of a two-year budget, provides tax relief for Connecticut residents, as we spiral toward a recession, just remember it's just the opposite.
 
Ma Rell has once again managed to do the impossible, out do the liberals, with a tax and spend plan that shows total disregard for Connecticut residents, already taxed to death, and sometimes taxed after death.   Although law and order supporters will praise her for proposing a real "three strikes" law, after she totally botched the effort, during the legislature's special session on criminal justice reform, the real story of her latest budget fiasco, will be to expand state government and its bureaucracy, while providing little tax relief.
 
To wit, the Govenor plans to hire 525 new state employees.   Just the benefits and pension packages alone, will sink the state deeper into red ink.   Her break up of the state DOT into two agencies is a classic example of more government.    Why not streamline the current agency?   Her plan to add 20 million dollars for the arts, although noble, comes at the wrong time for overtaxed residents.    In all, during these "difficult financial and economic conditions," the Governor is proposing more than 900 million dollars in new state spending and planning to borrow another 82 million dollars, adding to the multi-billion dollar debt Connecticut now faces.    It's evident the Governor wasn't paying attention, during Economics 101.
 
And what about her tax relief package?    She wants to extend the sales tax exemption for those, who buy Energy Star appliances, and then claims that's a 23 million dollar savings to taxpayers.   How bogus is that?   First, there's the presumption every taxpayer will buy an appliance.   Secondly, all the state will do is charge an additional 23 million dollars in fees to make up the difference, if in fact, enough people buy appliances that total 23 million dollars in tax breaks.
 
Of course, she heralded "her" plan to end the annual $250 dollar business entity tax on small businesses as another tax break.   The fact is, it was a tax implemented by her predessesor and the original idea to end it, was presented by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz last month.    The Governor, who was handing out plaudits like candy during her address, could have at least nodded in the direction of the Secretary of the State, when she made the announcement.
 
And what about the $3.4 billion surplus the state has accumulated over the last four years?   Connecticut taxpayers haven't seen one penny.    The most responsible budget package the Governor could have offered, would have been to roll back the gross receipts tax.    It would have lowered prices at the gasoline pumps.    Then she could have offset her spending increases in other areas, with  cuts elsewhere.
 
What Connecticut residents received yesterday, was more government, more spending and no tax breaks,    Whatelse could you expect from a liberal governor.

So let me get something straight.    The people of Connecticut are supposed to feel safer, following the charade in the state capitol this week, that masquaraded as a special session of the General Assembly?   As politicians from both sides of the aisle pat themselves on the back for a job well done, including Governor M. Jodi Rell, it's worthy to note what wasn't passed.
 
Six months after the triple murder in Cheshire, that set this wheel of "justice reform" into motion, Connecticut still does not have a three strikes law, the main component in the public's call for action.   And while the politicos remind us, we now have a tougher home invasion law, consider the following:  if your home is broken into by an unarmed suspect and robbed, while you're asleep, it isn't classified as a home invasion.
 
What the occupants of the golden dome did manage to accomplish, with this new bill, is expand state government and increase spending.    Some special session.
 
Marilyn Bertoli, the Cheshire resident, who along with her husband, has worked tirelessly to get a three strikes law passed, blasted Tuesday's session on my afternoon program.   "We're very disappointed, but not surprised.    Let's be honest about it.   The judiciary committee's idealogy is completely different than ours.   This issue goes to the heart of every single person in this state, because it's about the public safety.   Led by the judiciary committee, the legislature decided to support and side with the criminals."
 
Though she didn't say it, you could read Bertoli's criticism to mean the co-chair's of the legislature's judiciary committee, State Representative Michael Lawlor and State Senator Andrew McDonald, for creating legislation that "supports and sides with the criminals."     Certainly, Lawlor and McDonald deserve their share of the blame, but so do all the Democrats, who voted against three strikes and the Governor, who proved with her high approval ratings, to be nothing more than a paper tiger.
 
After vowing not to turn criminal justice reform legislation into a political side show, the Democrats managed to do just that, crafting a law that panders to their liberal base, while enabling liberal judges to continue doling out sentences that fit their political philosophy.   Thus, instead of being bound by a law that would keep third time offenders in jail for life,  a judge's discretion will continue to rule the day.    And if residents don't think that's an important issue, they haven't been following Enfield and Rockville Superior Court decisions in recent years, where liberal judges have been known to let repeat criminals go free, including sex offenders.
 
For her part, Governor Rell, who promised not to compromise on three strikes, failed to influence the Democrats in the legislature.  Essentially, the liberals managed to render Governor Rell impotent, knowing she lacked the skills to convert public support for three strikes and her high approval ratings into a tougher law.    Democrats even managed to turn the tables on the Governor's infamous penchant for naming task forces.   When her own task force on criminal justice reform did not recommend a three strikes law, it provided the Democrats perfect cover to repeatedly remind one and all, during debates on the House and Senate floors, "The Governor's own task force didn't recommend one."  Live by the task force, die by the task force, apparently.
 
That the Governor now promises to continue the three strikes fight in the legislature's regular session next month is laughable.    If she couldn't spend her political capital in a special session, what makes her think she can do it now?
 
Senator Sam Caligiuri, whose 16th District includes the area, where the triple murder occured, says he will fight hard for a tough three strikes and your out law..   The first term Republican, has been in the movement's vanguard from the start.  He calls the Democrats' failure to pass one a "legitimate campaign issue."   And it is.
 
The fact is, the Republicans have been handed the perfect campaign issue to make up major ground in both chambers of the legislature in next November's elections.   But not if Governor Rell continues to issue her usual press releases, praising herself for a job well done.   Indeed, she's quoted in her latest puff piece as saying the bill passed is "a tough home invasion law that's the linchpin of our real reform."    What dream world does she live in?   In fact, if you're dreaming, when someone breaks into your home without a weapon, under the new law, it isn't a home invasion.
 
If Governor Rell was a real leader, she would veto the bill, and tell the Democrats unless three strikes is in it, there is no deal.   Let the liberals override the veto and explain to the public, why it's necessary to pander to their political base.   But don't bet on a veto.   Chris Dodd has a better chance of becoming President.

Lost in the cacophony of presidential politics is the important undertaking by our state legislature and governor over reform of Connecticut's criminal justice system.   Five and a half months, after the triple homicide in Cheshire, part of a horrific home invastion, leading Democrats in the General Assembly and Governor M. Jodi Rell, finally unveiled their plans to "fix" the system this week.
 
Both sides went through great pains to show the public partisan politics is not part of the equation, this time around, with several leaders saying Republicans and Democrats are 95 percent in agreement over what needs to be done.   If anything, the Democrats, perhaps cognizant of the public's perception of their party being weak on crime, are talking like McGruff the Crime Dog.    Appearing on my program, Senate President Donald William Jr., sensitive to the fact his party's proposal doesn't include Governor's Rell's plan for a tougher "three strikes law," suggested maybe two strikes is the way to go.
 
"If a person has committed a violent crime, the second time, why should he be given a third chance?" the Senator asked, rhetorically.     And when a caller suggested to Senator Williams that liberal policies, championed by his party, have fostered an environment that leads to home invasions, he grew testy, adding, "Connecticut has some of the toughest laws on the books, of any state in the nation.   Our prison population is among the highest of any state."
 
The three strikes law, does appear to be among the differences between the two sides.   Democrats claim the law already exists, as part of the persisent offender statute, but Republicans say the law is weak and needs to be reformed.   In fact, Governor Rell, sometimes criticized in private by her own party members for acting more like a Democrat, tossed the GOP a huge bone, when she included the tougher three strikes law in her plan.   That's because her own commission on reforming the system didn't suggest its inclusion.    It's a warm day in January, when the Queen of Task Forces, decides one of her own panels needs some tweaking.   
 
If Senator Williams wants to one up the Governor and offer, even loosely, a two strikes law, then jump in.   The water's warm.   In our interview, the Senator, even went so far as to say a couple of other Republican suggestions merit discussion.   To wit, the various proposals place more punishment on burglaries committed at night and with a firearm.    But why should that matter?   A home invasion is a home invasion, whether it's 3:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the afternoon.   Furthurmore, no firearms were used in the Cheshire crime.   The Senate President said he would be open to discussing these points.
 
Democrats to an extent, but more so Governor Rell, have been subtlety reminding residents this reformation will come with a costly price tag.    In one interview, the Governor stated her plan, would probably require "bonding," and that we should know the figure, when she delivers her budget address next month.   
 
Bonding, of course, is a code word for increased spending, and residents should pay close attention, as this part of the story unfolds.     What the Governor and the legislature bond in an election year, could result in tax increases in a non-election year, with politicians using as their "excuse," the public outcry for better protection.   Meanwhile, the additional revenue will be earmarked for the general fund, and eventually siphoned off to pet projects.
 
Admittedly, what's being proposed, from a fulltime Board of Pardons and Parole to more corrections officials, to the proverbial cure-all GPS, will cost big bucks, but it shouldn't cost the taxpayers, one more penny.    The Governor and the legislature, could take the millions of dollars they have at their disposal for pet projects - that help insure reelection - and earmark it for corrections reform.    If the Governor can find thousands of dollars to help New Milford farmers in the private sector promote their farmers' market, she and the General Assembly can hunt down more money to protect the people, without raising the bottom line.
 
The presidential races may be garnering the headlines, but consumers of news are attentive to how the state is addressing this issue.   Now it's up to both sides, to do right by the public, without bankrupting it.

On Friday, November 30, students at Torrington High School are going to get an opportunity most people old enough to vote don't receive, the chance to question a U.S. Senator.    Senator Joseph Lieberman will address the student body about global warming, then take questions.    In the interest of wanting students to be "all that they can be," here are some questions they can ask the former running mate of the father of global warming, Al Gore.
 
-Senator, because you have written numerous op-ed pieces for the Wall St. Journal, what is your reaction to the op-ed piece in the Oct. 17 Journal, written by Dr. Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment?    He writes that those who endorse global warming, as being manmade, are making their judgement on "beliefs that have little scientific basis."    In case you don't know, Senator, Dr. Botkin is the developer of the computer model used to "forecast possible effects of global warming on life."
 
-Senator, Dr. William Gray, considered one of the world's "foremost meteorologists," says global warming is the result of ocean cycles, and that the cycle will soon change to cooler weather.    Dr. Gray said, "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."    What do you think he means by this?
 
-Senator, in March a New York Times story reported that certain scientists in the National Academies call some of Al Gore's central points on global warming, "exaggerated and erroneous."    Would you care to comment on this?
 
-Senator, are you aware of Al Gore's monthly electricity bill at his Tennessee home?
 
-Senator, can you explain how much money Al Gore's various enterprises have made from the global warming issue?
 
-Senator, why does Al Gore refuse to debate many in the scientific community, who question his theory of manmade global warming?
 
-Senator, what did you mean, when you equated global warming with terrorism?   In fact, your exact words on Oct. 12, were "I am convinced global warming, also threatens the lives of a lot of people."
 
Of course, we invite, not only the students of Torrington High School, but the voting public at large, to ask Senator Lieberman these questions, should he avail himself to voters' questions, the way he's made himself available to the non voting student body.
 

Something interesting happened on the way to the polls in Connecticut this past election day.   More voters heeded the Republican Party's message of less government spending and lower taxes.    Of course, the main stream media has chosen to give the story short shrift, because it fails to coincide with their continued attempt to brainwash the public with a liberal agenda.    But in municipal elections across the state, voters fired a salvo to elected officials; they're tapped out.
 
While political pundits have chosen to write the GOP's obituary in this deep blue state, party stalwarts have realized the only way to take the Republicans off lifesupport, is through a grassroots effort.     Election Day results show the seeds have been sown.
 
Enfield is a primary example.    Democrats have called the shots for nearly a decade in this north Central Connecticut town of about 45,000 residents.   Under that party's leadership, taxes have climbed, education spending has increased, and a cozy relationship with municipal and education unions has led to sweetheart contracts.   Meanwhile, private industry continues to pick up and leave town.  The apparent straw that broke the camel's back was the latest deal cut between the town and the teachers union.
 
But instead of cowering in a corner, Republicans used this as motivation, staging a good old fashion aggressive campaign.   "We went door-to-door, and campaigned at shopping centers and other areas for eight weekends," said an estatic Susan Lavelli-Hozempa, a Republican reelected to the Board of Education.    She gives credit to party chairman Mary Ann Turner for laying the groundwork for the victory.  
 
Enfield Republicans, now in control of both the town council and education board, are wasting little time getting down to business.   Two days after the election, they were meeting to begin scrutiny of the education budget.   If they have their way, the spending plan will be audited, as a way to slice fat from a bloated bureaucracy.
 
In Manchester, a Democrat party stronghold for years, Republicans made major gains and now share equal power on all the towns major boards.
 
In Newington, another "certain" win for Democrats, Republican Jeff Wright, a financial planner, upset incumbent Democrat Maureen H. Klett to win the mayor's seat.   Newington Republicans also gained equal status with Democrats on both the Town Council and Board of Education.
 
In Winsted, for years a Democrat party enclave, Republicans delivered a major victory.    Long gone are the days, when the late John Groppo, a blueblooded Democrat - whose power extended across the state - dictated Winsted's direction.   Democrats, who once had a solid 5-2 edge on the Board of Selectman lost out to the GOP, which now controls the board by the same advantage.   Republicans also gained control of the Board of Education.   In fact, every Republican, running for office on election day, won.    Gibson Cafe Cinema owner Alan Nero, quoted in the Republican American, is now referring to his town as "the new Winsted."
And the newly elected are wasting little time getting down to business.   Republican Kenneth J. Fracasso was sworn in as mayor and immediately scheduled a special meeting to reconsider a massive, multi-million dollar capital improvement project.

In Vernon, two-time Democrat incumbent Mayor Ellen L. Marmer lost to Republican Jason L. McCoy. The 35 year old upstart won decisively, snagging 60 percent of the vote. The mayor-elect was quoted as saying people were sick of higher tax bills.

Southington, a town dominated by Democrats, witnessed a shift in the Board of Education from Democrat to Republican. Newly-elected education board member Terri Carmody, a Republican, said residents were concerned about the direction of education in town, including school safety and drug use among students.
 
In Torrington, another Democrat hotbed for years, boy wonder Mayor Ryan Bingham, 25, won a second term, after cutting taxes, the first GOP mayor to win reelection in the city in 20 years.   And this time voters gave him even more support, handing control of the City Council over to the Republicans, while increasing the GOP presence on a Board of Education that for years has lavished benefits on a revolving door of school superintendents.
 
Maybe it's not only "the new Winsted," but the beginnings of the new Connecticut.  The Republican victories on election day, in areas where Democrats have had a stranglehold on power, offer encouragement for a viable multi-party system.   But it's only a start.   If the GOP is to pull Connecticut out of its blue party morass, it must deliver on its promise of less government and lower taxes.    The challenge won't be easy, because Democrats at the state and local levels will adopt the national party strategy of spreading gloom and doom with Republicans in control.    The newly minted Republicans must not fall prey to such tired, old tactics.   
 
More than ever, residents are scrutinizing their property tax bills and withholding amounts on paychecks.    Republicans have been handed a golden opportunity.   Unlike their national brethern, who lost their way, if the GOP sticks to its message, Connecticut might break from a deep blue bondage, that chokes off opportunity at every corner.

At first blush, it seems like a good idea, grade parents.    Who, among the concerned taxpaying populace wouldn't want to grade parents?   How often have many of us heard the old line, "you need a license to be a bus driver, but you don't need a license to be a parent?"   The comment is usually uttered, after some news story of children, living in squalor, while a single parent cavorts, behind closed doors.
 
As education budgets skyrocket and taxpayers complain, the education community looks for ways to placate taxpayers, while refusing to engage in the obvious, cut the fat out of the education budget.    The latest endeavor comes from Steve Edwards, a member of the Manchester Board of Education.
 
Edwards wants teachers to grade parents, even though a similar program failed in Chicago.   It would be an evaluation of sorts, where teachers would grade the parents or guardians of their students at teacher-parent conferences, usually scheduled twice, during the school year.   Did parents make sure their children arrived on time for school?   Did they make sure homework assignments were turned in on time?    Were their children properly dressed for the weather?  Did parents make sure their children were nourished for the school day?
 
These are some of the catagories, Edwards wants graded, as if teachers didn't have enough to do.   Mind you, he says, parents wouldn't be punished for any failures.    Then why bother with such an exercise?   Teachers are overburdened, as it is, we are told.   They work hard, just to insure children are prepared to learn, before the actual day's teaching begins.    Now another task must be added to the teacher's work day?    Furthurmore, don't some educators want to eliminate grading of students?   Now, we're going to have a "No Parent Left Behind Act" with parents being graded?
 
Edwards' idea may be born out of good intentions, and it's received nationwide attention, including from NBC's Today Show.    But to institute such a program, would set us on a slippery slope.  .
 
I'm sure, this is not what the founding fathers had in mind, when they created this country: having big government go into the homes of parents to tell them how they should raise their children.    Unfortunately, the price of a free society, includes children, who are raised in less than ideal conditions.   But to allow the government to step in, even on a "voluntary" basis, to nudge parents or a parent toward a better way to raise a child, is a dangerous policy that starts the school district, and government in general, on a journey that opposes the tenets on which this country was founded.
 
What's next?    Does big government enter our homes, and order us not to smoke, because the children will be exposed to second hand smoke?    Does big government restrict what our children are fed at home, to insure they enter the classroom in optimum condition?   The possibilities are endless. 
 
Let the free market system prevail and even parenting will flourish.   According to the latest U.S. Census, public discourse on poor parenting skills has placed pressure on parents to do a better job.   No government program was needed.  The latest data from three years ago, shows parents are becoming more active in their children's lives, from encouraging after school activities to turning off the household television sets, so children can devote more time for homework.   In an AP story,  "about 47 percent of teenagers had multiple TV restrictions in 2004, up from 40 percent in 1994.   71 percent of children age 6 to 11 had such limits in 2004, up from 60 percent a decade ago."
 
Granted, teachers are faced with obstacles, which may not have existed in years past, hungry children, or children on sugar highs, with short attention spans.    The answer, however, is not to order more government intervention to justify a bloated education bureaucracy.     Better to create policy that doesn't encourage an automatic government handout.  Better to create a government, that although sensitive to those in need, isn't sensitive to those, who engage in activities that encourage such need.
 
Government already infiltrates too much of our daily lives, in some cases just to justify its existence, in other cases to mold a needy class that cannot exist without government assistance.  This modus operandi carrys with it, an exorbitant price tag for taxpayers, while infringing upon our freedoms. 
 
Better we allow a "free" society to behave at will, with all its warts, enabling parents to succeed or not, without government intervention.    To do otherwise, would continue the steady erosion of the foundation, on which the United States was built.
 
 
 

The six-member state Senate panel, investigating Senator Louis DeLuca's conduct with an alleged mobster, acted wisely this week, when it decided no furthur public testimony was needed from individuals tied to the case.  
 
By now, most people know that the former Senate Minority Leader pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to threaten, after making contact with alleged mob figure James Galante.   The Senator paid a $2000 fine and was given a six-month suspended sentence.   The longtime Woodbury Republican admitted turning to Galante to take action against the husband of his granddaughter for allegedly abusing her, after receiving no help from Waterbury Police Chief Neil O'Leary.  
 
The Senator has done everything to preserve his seat, including stepping down as Senate minority leader, but in the process he's tarnished the legislature, and put his Senate colleagues in the uncomfortable and unprecedented position - in Connecticut, anyway-  of having to judge one of their own.    By next month, the Senate panel, known under the fancy title as The Bipartisan Committee of Review,  will recommend to the full Senate that Senator DeLuca be reprimanded in some form,  with expulsion a possibility.  
 
Senator DeLuca should end this process now and resign.    The Senator,  74, continues to insist that his overture to Galante didn't allow the alleged mob figure to curry favor with him.  He insists all he's trying to do his rescue his reputation.    Rescue it, I might add, at taxpayers' expense, because there is a pricetag to this investigation.   
 
Senator DeLuca, in fact, has gone to such great lengths to save his reputation, he's willing to soil others, including that of the Waterbury Police Chief.     After refusing to testify under oath to the committee last week, the Senator had a change of heart, following a recess, only to take Chief O'Leary to task for inaction, following the Senator's complaint about his granddaughter's husband.     That prompted a counterattack from the Chief, who said DeLuca never filed a formal complaint, that his granddaughter was being physically abused by husband Mark Colella, a point the Senator had to acknowledge to the investigative committee.    In a statement and in interviews, Chief O'Leary said that the Senator's granddaughter never came to police to complain.    The Senator said it was only after the Chief's lack of response, that he sought out Galante, who's been indicted by the feds for his alleged involvement in a Mafia-backed plan to dominate the trash hauling business in western Connecticut.
 
In reality, the Senator's effort, before the committee, to disparage Chief O'Leary, whose credibility and that of his department is far higher than the Senator's, bombed.   The committee co-chairs in as much said so on October 23, when they politely turned down Chief O'Leary's request to appear before the panel.    The committee saw right through Senator DeLuca's testimony about the chief, when panel co-chair Senator Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, told the Hartford Courant, "The responsibility of the committee has to do with Senator DeLuca's actions, not the police chief of Waterbury or Mr. Galante or a lobbyist or anyone else."
 
The fact is, if the Senator's version about his meeting with the Chief were true - and I believe Chief O'Leary's version, not the Senator's, he should have sought out other law enforcement agencies.   Senator DeLuca's claim to the committee that he thought Galante was on "the fringes of organized crime," is laughable.    It's obvious Senator DeLuca knew of Galante's alleged mob ties, or he wouldn't have approached him.    There are no "fringes," when you solicit someone to take physical action against another figure.   
 
Furthurmore, the only thing standing between Senator DeLuca's misdemeanor and something more serious, was an FBI wiretap.    Without the undercover investigation,  the story might have read differently, with Colella beaten up by mob figures at the behest of a Connecticut state senator.    Perfect movie material for a state, that now offers Hollywood big tax breaks.
 
The notion by the Senator and others in his corner, that it's up to the people of his district to decide his fate in the next election, also shows a political naivete.    State lawmakers are elected from their district to bring home the bacon, and that, along with other actions, effects all of Connecticut and its taxpayers, especially, when the elected official is in the influential position of minority leader.    Additionally, a Senator's vote, whether in committee or in the full Senate, effects all of the state's taxpayers, not just the people in his district.
 
The fact is, the Senate, cannot have as one of its members, someone who consorted with the mob, even if the association was born out of frustration, for perceived lack of action by law enforcement agencies.   
Wisely, the investigative panel has recognized Senator DeLuca's transparent testimony, and come to realize the issue is not Waterbury's Chief of Police, but Senator DeLuca's association with a figure, under indictment for consorting with the mob.  Now the committee needs to send the right message and expul the Senator.   
Better yet, the Senator needs to face the truth,  that his once stellar legislative career has been tarnished by a mistaken last act, that reads like a Greek tragedy, and step down now!