The Hartford Times - Redux? Well, perhaps - but with a Twist!

Local Connecticut Conservatives are at again. 

This time the focus is the long overdue prospect of creating a viable option to Connecticut's main newspaper -  The Hartford Courant.  The brain child of this endeavor is none other than former West Hartford Town Council Member, and former First Congressional Republican Candidate Joseph Visconti.  Visconti, head of Visconti Media Group, is a popular activist who is well respected in Tea Party and main stream Republican circles.

Visconti's popularity stems from his willingness to stand up to Connecticut's tired Republican establishment.  He's been out front calling on current Chairman Chris Healy to step down after a disastrous trend of electoral failures under his leadership. Visconti will tell you openly: "this project is not about me. I'm just trying to create a forum so that Conservatives have a voice, and a chance to be heard in Connecticut."  A pretty accurate statement about a long time gap.


Irony and History 

The choice of the name of his new facebook group, called The Hartford Times, is as creative as it is ironic.  The Hartford Times (henceforth The Times) served as Hartford's afternoon newspaper operated between January 1, 1817 until its closure after purchase by its rival and new owner (The Hartford Courant) on October 20, 1976.  The irony is that The Times was a second headquarters for the Democrat Party propagating its positions and agenda for over a century. 



The Hartford Times Building
was the Democrat Party's base of
operations for over a century

The Times was created by wealthy Democrat Alfred E. Burr back in 1817 specifically for the purpose of advancing his Party's political agenda, largely pro-labor related issues. The first location was the Brownstone building at the intersection of Main and Grove Street. Alfred's son Willie Olcott Burr took over in 1899 continuing on with his father's vision until his death in 1921.  C. Everett Willson took over and owned the newspaper until he sold it to Gannett Publishing Company in 1928.  The newspaper was fairly successful until it was purchased by New Haven based, Register Publishing Company in 1973 which ultimately fast tracked its demise.  Former employees blame the newspaper's failure on rising costs, union demands, endless management turnover, and general staff incompetency. 

Notwithstanding the reasons cited above, my own view is that it's likely that successful circulation of an afternoon newspaper in the advent of popular televised evening news programs, both local and national, likely contributed to its doom.  By the time The Times published its stories, it was serving up old news to its readership better covered by moving images, and news anchors.  As demographics changed via the realities of changing culture, The Courant held its early morning readership, and The Times died on its dwindling vine. 

Regarding The Times long established tie to the Democrat Party - to be fair, while I don't have a complete list of Presidential endorsements The Times has made, the paper is rumored to have supported both Democrat and Republican candidates during its history.  Of course, given the well understood connection between the Democrat Party and The Times, its more than likely that Republican endorsements were far and few between - thus the Visconti initiative and his group's use of the name, The Hartford Times, is likely making Alfred Burr, et al turn over in their graves. In any case, the beautiful Hartford Times building, designed by architect Donn Barber in 1920, has been used as a backdrop for speeches by several U.S. Presidents including, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. (These pictures can be found in the Hartford Library archives).  A side note: The columns on the building were originally attached to a Presbyterian Church at 1905 Madison Square in NYC.  As the Church was undergoing demolition, its likely Burr picked them up for free!

Vision's Purpose: Fighting Bias

It's worth discussing why Visconti and his friends would want to seek an alternative to The Hartford Courant.  You don't have to dig very deep into the The Courant's ink filed pages to see the clear alignment between its reporting and the Connecticut Democrat Party. To begin with  The Courant's endorsement of nearly every Democrat Presidential, Congressional, and Gubernatorial candidate, and state office seeker since the mid-1980s (with a few minor exceptions) outlines its bias.  The bias is particularly evident when it comes to its endorsement of people like Denise Nappier, who's investments have cost Connecticut taxpayer millions. And the Courant refused to acknowledge the result of her investments in Magic Johnson's shifty schemes as costly, and unrecoverable.  Most people in the private sector lose jobs for making such damaging investment decisions; they don't find themselves reappointed, and encouraged to make the same mistakes.

Further, news coverage and editorials have long casted Democrat positions in a positive light - for example, cheerleading the union labor movement, supporting higher taxation, running stories about business which paint executives and basic business decisions unfairly, and championing poor court decisions such as Sheff v O'Neill, and nearly all of former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's counter-productive decade long litigation quests against businesses -  which have resulted in lost job.

In stark contrast, Republican positions are painted in a dark, cynical light-everything from ignoring government mandated fees and regulation burdening business, to critical coverage of Tea Party rallies.  The Courant's editorial board has clearly become intentionally blind to the impacts of Gov. Dannel Malloy's budget proposals on the middle class, and attracting (or keeping) businesses in Connecticut.  Schemes like eliminating the middle class tax credit, instituting a 19% tax burden increase on struggling businesses, and increasing costs and fees on nearly everything is deemed as merely a shared sacrifice.  Can The Courant bring itself to explore the possible ramifications of these policies?  And yet when it comes to its investigative reporting on the urgent need to reduce spending, or assigning accountability for the budget crisis to Connecticut's Legislature - no words can be found; not even an inference. 

As for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the biased Courant reporting writes off the Christie's proposal to reduce public sector expenditures as a "popularity stunt".  Pretty shameful.  The Courant does a huge disservice to its readership by selling the Malloy budget as "necessary".

When the average working taxpayer picks up The Hartford Courant and sees it propagating the Democrat plan - if not outright selling their "only one way to handle this is through higher taxes" scheme, many people are opening their eyes for the first time and questioning why their hometown newspaper is championing the liberal cause to lead Connecticut further down the road to perdition through higher spending, and higher taxes. It makes you wonder why those at the editorial desk still wonder why The Courant is losing subscriptions at a record pace.  This cheifly explains why Connecticut needs an alternative publication, whether electronic or print, to combat the stale antics of the only game in town.

Grassroots Media Movement and Market

For the longest time, this author has preached high and low about the need for an alternative to The Hartford Courant.  The Connecticut Republican Party has always had monumental task  getting its talking points out in the open for fair hearing in a blue state dominated by a monopoly  of liberal media outlets well-positioned to directly and indirectly promote the Democrat agenda.  However, the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook has allowed activists (on both sides) to only partially endgame these media giants. Social media allows everyone to be a reporter, columnist, or photographer.  But the subtle difference is that social media works best as a tool for activists;  it does little to impact the debate in the general public.  Social media addicts tend to already live in one camp or the other.  Unless you are seeking information on a topic or policy, you're less likely to want to read political tweets, or political Facebook posts. 

Newspapers and news sites are more effective in their ability to influence the general public on policy since most people are comfortable with the format, and generally do not recognize the clever skill of written manipulation used by professional media experts.  Thousands of newspapers are delivered daily to the front steps of Americans who digest what is provided as mere fact. While  the average person seems quite willing to be cynical of their Government, the general media gets a free pass; sadly deemed objective by the majority who do not consider themselves political.

It's clear that the cost involved in starting a large scale newspaper company is likely cost prohibitive.  It would require millions to secure a building, printing materials, reporters and staff, a distribution service, and all the equipment required to carry out the business.  This is likely why newspapers are going out of business, or consolidating, rather than popping up around the country.  It's more likely that a conglomeration would purchase The Courant before a rival newspaper would suddenly appear across town - particularly in a dow- turned economy like this one.

But its not all doom and gloom. 

Some of the options currently being explored are a good compromise between starting a media empire, and messaging each other on Facebook.  And as for a market, you can look at the desire for alternative national news programming with the success story of Fox News Channel overtaking CNN and other media outlets.  And before you're too quick to claim that the country is more conservative as a whole than liberal Connecticut (a point which I would concede), I would also argue that the Fox News Channel was not an instant success, but rather grew in popularity AFTER years of being offered as an alternative.  Thus it would be so with a Connecticut based, more conservative alternative.

A reasonable suggestion on the table is to build a fully operational electronic news organization.  This would still require significant capital to employ reporters, writers, network equipment, marketing and advertising, and so forth.  There are plenty of examples of webpage such as Realclearpolitics.com, NationalReview.com, and others which are either fully electronic, or semi-electronic/semi-periodical and have strong followings among readers.

Connecticut based political websites have been somewhat successful in the past, but have never reached their full potential because most have been created for a limited audience by a small group of volunteers, or an individual without a budget trying to be a voice in a vast sea of repetitive liberalism.  Taking this idea a step further through serious financing, organization, and determination could result in the goal that has long evaded Republicans and Conservatives - a place to be seen and heard, and an opportunity to be a valid alternative for those seeking different views on Connecticut issues.

I urge those at this new Hartford Times - Redux, to continue forward on their mission undeterred by those who fear loss of their centralized power base.  Get yourselves organized with trusted resources fully vetted for ideology and competence.  With unyielding commitment and determination, the sky is the limit.  And with an audience as hungry as Connecticut's for an alternative to what the Hartford rag is pushing out each day, you might find yourselves with more subscribers than you know what to do with.  Just keep it manageable.

Good luck!  Don't give up the dream!

The King credits the book Images of Hartford Vol 3 by Wilson H Faude for background information on The Hartford Times.

This original blog post can be viewed at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Coexist?

The other day, I was on my way to work taking my usual route when I happened upon a small red car driving 50 mph blocking the left lane of the highway bearing a bumper sticker depicting mostly religious symbols mixed with letters. Upon closer examination I saw that the letters spelled out the famed liberal keyword COEXIST.  I immediately laughed out loud at the thought that another mindless Connecticut liberal was in my way as I traveled onto my capitalist job in the City.

Speeding past this social-engineer, I couldn't help but think of the age-old, mesmerizing symbols and I began to wonder to which of these special interest groups the driver likely belonged.  I noted that the driver was a woman which wasn't necessarily revealing since lunatics from the far left tend to come from both sexes - either the famed masculine woman, or the feminine male, or freaks who might be a bit of both.  So was this woman a lesbian?  A Muslim?  A Jew?  Or just a crazy member of the United Church of Christ?  I guess I'll never know.



It's hard to coexist with suicide
bombers and jihadits

  But one thing that we do know is that the contradictions on this bumper sticker are more than any scholar of religious studies could possibly handle.  If you look at the world through rose-colored glasses, I guess its really hard to see the truth. It's so much easier to pretend to see a world filled with happy diverse people all holding hands together, singing Kumbaya.

Of course, we all know the fact that religious and ethic coexistence (or even tolerance) in the form liberals suggest is nothing short of fantasy.  Take for example an actual real world scenario of how well Jews, Christians and Islamic Jihadits get along in the Middle East.  Week after week, we hear stories of Christian minorities in Egypt and Syria being torchered and killed as infidels in the name of Islam.  Of course that's nothing when you consider how Muslims have treated Jews for thousands of years up to the current day - through suicide bombing at weddings, and in public workplaces; endless attempts at genocide of those Israelis clinging to life on a 15 mile peninsula.  It's got to be very hard to coexist with people who want to wipe you out as an ethnic group.

And admittedly, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire's Crusades during the Middle Ages weren't exactly the most peaceful and righteous days for Christianity, but its minor compared to the rhetoric of today's Islamic Clerics calling on Muslims to rise up and kill Westerners in their own lands,  preaching in favor of honor killings, and pushing for the installation of Sharia Law on every continent.  There are few Buddhist or Christian compounds which recruit children and woman for suicide attacks on innocent Muslim civilians.  And where is the condemnation of Islam by Liberals?  There isn't one, only bumper stickers demanding we all just Coexist.

You have to wonder how liberals live with themselves.  Liberals preach that Islam is a religion of peace, and Arabs are victim to American Imperialism, meanwhile Muslim women are force-dressed in Burkas, brutalized, and humiliated hundreds of ways as outlined by Sharia Law.  Where are liberals standing up for woman's rights, or even basic human rights when it comes to Islamic outrages?  I guess hypocrisy only goes so far.

To the average person, the idea of coexisting with others means to leave everyone around you alone - live and let live - they say.  But in the age of political correctness we've seen Wiccans work to ban little school children from dressing up at Halloween as ghosts, witches, and comic book heroes because trick or treat is deemed offensive.  We've seen corporations bow to liberal lunatics and remove reference Christmas from holiday parties, store ad campaigns, and even sponsored charity signs on town greens.  And we see liberals defend an atheist Chinese government which maligns and kills Buddhists because advancing state run communism is more important to them than freedom of any religion. 

What kills me is that even here at home we see the full court press by intolerant groups like the ACLU which fights to remove Christmas from our lexicon, God from our Pledge of Allegiance, and wages war against Christian's rights to preserve marriage as a union between a man and woman; instead launching lawsuits to advance the gay rights agenda to change the morally accepted principles as outlined in the Holy Bible; seeking to replace the Judeo-Christian values which this Nation was founded upon with a new secular free-for-all statism.  Coexist?

Funny how liberals wag their fingers and peddle their little social virtues around for all of us to follow.  But I guess from where I sit, I don't see where my friends and I are left alone to simply live and let live or - coexist.  So the next time you see a bumper sticker urging you to be tolerant or to coexist, feel free to give the driver the sign of tolerance they so rightfully deserve.

This  original blog post can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

A Primer: How to Respond to Teacher - Union Rhetoric

As we watch the criminal activity of the Wisconsin teacher's union, and the biased news coverage painting out of control teachers storming the Wisconsin legislature as a heroic, grassroots moment, I'm quickly reminded of how the Tea Party Patriots were covered last year by the same media outlets - as selfish villains, racists, homophobes, nuts, etc.  Similarly, just over a week ago when riots were taking place in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt,  instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the media hailed the madness as a successful, peaceful, democratic revolution.  Funny, there aren't too many peaceful revolutions that end in 360 deaths (BBC report), and the country's military left in charge for 6 months or more.  I guess the point is that if there is one constant in the Universe - its that the media can be counted on to condemn that which is good, and cheerfully support that which is clearly wrong.  It goes along with the kind of bizarro-thinking that we've been accustomed too see everytime we tune in to our favorite talking heads.

Bad week for Unions:
Americans are beginning to see
what the Education Cartel is
really all about

I've never been a fan of Unions. Unions went out of necessity at about the same time that the horse-drawn carriage, and the steam locomotive were taken out of service; clearly - outdated, antiquated, and counterproductive.  In fact, there was nothing more wonderful than watching Ronald Reagan break the Air Traffic Controller's backs in the 1980s.  And I remember clearly that the public cheered Reagan's actions against those who put air navigation in harm's way and halted public travel - well, all except for the local AFL-CIO and all their Congressional con-artists who could do little but watch the Unions crumble as constituents cheered on the President.

Amid the hysteria in Wisconsin, we can see that its absolutely true that the Wisconsin's Teachers Union - a branch of what my friend, Joe Visconti adeptly calls The Education Cartel neither gets it, nor wants to get it.  Wisconsin is a lot like Connecticut, in that its incredibly broke.  The reasons are very similar to Connecticut's - run away spending, anti-business climate, and greedy public sector unions demanding even more and more where none can be found.

There is plenty of blame to go around, I'm sure.  Democrats spending, and Republicans showing little or no backbone to stand-up to the onslaught.  Yet, Republican Governor Scott Walker is doing exactly what the public expects him to do - standing up for what is right, and stopping the run-away train! For that, we are proud of Gov. Walker (at least so far), in that he is not bowing to angry mob rhetoric, or special interests, and is standing up for ALL taxpayers by just saying We've had enough, public sector unions are not going to take advantage of the public any longer.

What prompted me to write this essay was neither the televised madness of the last few weeks, or the comparisons being made between Wisconsin and Connecticut's budget crisises, but rather the talk by local teachers, who have opted to weigh in with their opinions on the matter, playing the martyr role as they often do on the part of the national teachers union (the NEA: National Education Association, and ATA: American Teachers Association aka NEA-ATA).  Frankly, I'm sick of unions.  And I'm sick of these so-called education professionals playing their union games, and using our children as human shields to advance their agenda.  This isn't a matter of life or death, its about public employees threatening the public with doom and gloom scenarios; claiming that lining their pockets with cold hard cash, pension money, and lopsided benefits (the likes that that none of us will ever see) is the MOST important thing in the world. Well its not.

I wanted to spend the rest of this entry exploring the commonly heard rhetoric used by teachers when they engage the public in building sympathy for their self-serving cause.  And provide you with a nice little retort for each line.  So here goes:

Teacher:  We are deserving of a equitable pay and benefits just like people in the private sector.
You:  Teachers work on average about 160 days out of a 365 day year.  Yet your salaries are comparable to those of us in the public sector who work 330 days a year.  Your starting wage without experience is usually much higher than would be found in the private sector, and would take a private sector employee a long as five years to reach.  Your benefits include summers off, generous health benefits with an outdated minute co-pay for office visits and drugs no longer available to 90% of private sector employees.  You always get the major holidays off without having to compete for them against co-workers as we do in the private sector.

Teacher: We take home work from school. Correcting papers, reading essays, grading reports, and preparing our daily plans. I make after school calls to parents and have conferences after hours.
You:  Hooray for you. I'm expected to put in a minimum of 50 hours a week and up to 70 hours during some weeks because there is simply no such thing as a 40 hour work week in the private sector.  I'm required to take home my laptop and stay connected to work.  I make conference calls at all hours, draft reports, emails, and work weekends too.  If I don't work, I may not get paid. I have no contract or union rep to hide behind. I'd love to trade correcting papers for drafting analysis reports.  Or sleeping in on a snow day like you do, in the private sector companies no longer close down when there are three inches of snow because employees are expected to work from home.

Teacher:  Our jobs are noble; we teach your children eight hours a day, five days a week. We mold them for their future - that is our calling.
You:  If you are a teacher because its a noble occupation; good for you.  Then do much and expect little. Its disappointing that based on the actions by your union masters that its quite clear that amassing wealth via the almighty dollar has replaced teaching as a noble occupation in the 21st century.  The idea of being noble is to do something not out of want for material compensation but because you feel its important for society.  Teachers used to expect to make less than private sector employees, yet today's education crowd has thrown the noble aspect out of the window. It's about getting what you can, and as much as you can at any cause.  The teaching and the kids are secondary.

Teacher: I teach your child to be creative and independent.  I teach your child to think, and make good, morale choices.  I teach your child to be conscious of the world around him.
You:  Excuse me.  You are employed to teach our children the subject matter as mandated by the local Board of Education in conjunction with State and Federal Standards.  These plans are often predetermined by these boards, with quarterly or monthly expectations.  It is not your place to set moral standards for my children. That is my job.  If anything, teachers have drifted from academics to installing their own cynical social values.  This is wrong.  It is the parents job to be parents and instill morals and values, not the school.

Teacher: Teaching is hard.  You don't understand.  We have to be socialists, psychologists, mentors, babysitters, and policeman.  We need to be compensated for this work.
You:  You are not paid to be any of these roles.  If you are having trouble with an individual student or set of students - dismiss them from the classroom and get back to teaching the majority.  If your principal doesn't support you, contact the Board of Education for support.  If something is happening in your classroom that is illegal, you have the obligation to call the police.  No one assigned you as a mediator, or to play Dr. Phil.  If you doing this, you probably should be fired for not doing the job you've been hired by your district to do.

Teacher:  You are cold hearted.  I care for my students.
You:  That's nice.  I care about my child's education.  If you are wasting my son/daughter's valuable learning time playing social engineering games, you should be terminated for not doing your job.  If a student has psychological problems send them to the office or to the guidance counselor and get back to teaching.

Teacher:  You hate teachers.
You:  No. I don't hate teachers.  I hate what teachers have become: Political operatives of the Democrat Party.  This is well documented by your labor union's (NEA-ATA) unyielding commitment to the Democrat National Committee, and its candidates; the NEA-ATA has endorsed only Democrats since its inception in 1912. The NEA-ATA has also fought for bilingual education, and same sex marriage and education. It also funds (or has funded) extreme left wing groups ACORN, Amnesty International, Media Matters, Gay and Lesbian Alliance, Jesse Jackson's rainbow Push, La Raza, and Center for American Progress. Why is your labor union involved in such UN-American organizations and their agendas?

Teacher: I put my students ahead of my own personal needs and desires.
You: On the whole that is not true of teachers. If it were, teachers would not put politics and personal gain over students. Why does 80% of your funds go toward the DNC? Why are you protesting and causing outrageous public disturbances (riots) demanding salary increases when you are fully capable of reading the newspapers, and budget documents of states and local governments which are suffering from financial crisis.  Why are teachers ignoring the common issue and demanding raises, no layoffs, and arguing against any form of benefit conciliation?   What is noble about putting  yourself above the public interest?

Teacher:  We deserve raises just like people in the private sector.
You:  I don't know what part of the world you live in but the private sector is cutting jobs, not giving merit increases or bonuses, and consolidating entire departments to keep from going under.  Of anything, you are less deserving of bonuses because you support organizations and politicians who create policies that are counterproductive to job creation and capitalistic pro-growth economic policies.  In essence, the dues you pay and the affiliations you fund are a part of the root cause for  recession, and ongoing budget crisis among states.  Maybe you should rethink the cause and effect of your own actions, instead of demanding more from the public or government which you undermine.

This original blog post can be found at www.thekingsview.blogspot.com

Malloy unveils his plan to "fix" Connecticut

$1.5 billion dollars in new taxes.  No State Job cuts.  No Spending Cuts.

That pretty much sums up the pain that Nutmeggers will be expected to endure at the expense of Dannel Malloy's first budget as Governor of the disintegrating State of Connecticut.  Funny, when I watched Dannel deliver the news, he didn't do it with the usual smile that a proctologist has when he grabs you from behind.  No, it was with an arrogance of sorts - an eerie confidence that one sees from a stubborn child who grabs a hammer to pound a square peg into a round hole.


Nancy Wyman and
Gov Dan Malloy plan
their next move

Well Connecticut, its a fine mess you've gotten us into.  Your votes have been counted as they have since 1972, where you've continued to put Democrats in charge of the til.  The problem is that the only way out of this mess will be the eventual rising tide that may take place somewhere around 2014, if we are lucky and National Republicans don't screw things up during the next Presidential Election.

With all due respect to my hardworking, diligent, business-friendly friends here in Connecticut, I don't see a turn around in political control over in Connecticut's legislature in the near future, so I think prospects are rather grim.  I don't think the people here have the brainpower to understand the dynamics of economics 101, or intelligence to draw honest conclusions based on facts.  Quite frankly, many are excited about the prospect of a giant size safety net for the thousands of state workers who only feed at the trough and take from the system. And many other people simply don't care.  Most here are born Democrats, drink the feel-good Democrat Cool-Aid, and buy into wealth distribution as a means of financing equity for all.  It's obviously a disease or a form genetic mutation that is generations old for which there is no cure.

Connecticut Republicans, particularly our leadership, must also blame themselves for their bland approach to politics.  The aloof, low energy, visionless campaigns, and refusal to battle openly and loudly in public has killed us.  That's not the way we do things, they always said.  Yeah, and the results show it.  Unions and liberal crowds chant in the streets, and Republicans hide in their living rooms sipping cocktails.  Well, its not worked one bit.  I heard Chris Healy on the Radio yesterday.  He was so boring, and monotone in his interview on TIC that I could barely make out what he was saying - I had to turn up the volume just to make out his ramblings.  Again, low energy, pointless, mild-mannered dribble.  Get out!

The Malloy budget will be more than an albatross around the neck of the hardworking people of Connecticut.  Those who are filthy rich down in Fairfield County and elsewhere will barely feel a small pinch to their wealthy accounts.  But those of us in the middle class will be handed the burden - those families with two working adults who make a modest income which is just enough to allow us to own a home and pay a mortgage - whom Dan Malloy thinks are apparently well to do.  We are the ones scraping by trying to live within our means and who are being told we need to sacrifice to bail out jackasses who should have been fired from their legislative jobs.

And as for the poor?  Sounds cold - but screw them! If you're poor, you've been poor, you come from generations of poor - then to hell with you! Why should we give anything to anyone who does nothing for themselves, and are a burden on our system at every level?  Compassion?  I have no compassion for the lazy.  I have compassion for the guy who's worked his whole life to only see Dan Malloy and Democrats siphon off his hard earnings to finance their phony wealth distribution schemes - which will have no long term impact whatsoever.  Yet those reading Malloy's budget will see that the so-called poor are getting whopping $1700 rebates to spend while hardworking homeowners are LOSING their tax deductions.  Simply Amazing, isn't it?  Yeah, F- the poor!

Dan Malloy punishes success.  Dan Malloy takes from those who have worked hard and gives to those who don't or won't - when you take something from someone and give to whom it doesn't belong - that used to be constituted as nothing more than theft.

Now its legalized theft, and its conducted by our own State Government.  And Malloy and his fraudulent policymakers have the audacity to re title it sacrifice.  What crapola.

Hey if you see a State Worker, or you know one - don't be afraid to let them know how you feel.  They worked hard to get Malloy in office. It's up to you to make sure you let them know how you feel.

As for businesses, sure a whole different story.  Malloy proclaims, Connecticut is open for business.  Yeah, 19% of the new taxes being imposed are headed to the business sector.  Maybe Malloy hasn't noticed but Government has been choking business to the point where they are neither hiring, and in fact are laying off hundreds of workers in order to remain afloat.  Sure, so pile on more taxes, and make it more difficult for them to survive.  Can you blame them for moving south?

One of the most arrogant approaches by Governor Malloy is to compare Connecticut's tax rates with Rhode Island and Massachusetts to try and make his tax increases seem just.  Are you kidding me?  They are dying in Rhode Island, and Massachussets' economy is also in the tank.  Just because our neighbors have higher taxes doesn't justify us raising our taxes too.  What an insane argument for raising taxes.  Oh, they must be geniuses over there.  How stupid.  And how stupid for people to swallow it.  Where are comparison's with states which have cut taxes and spending and appear to be on the rise, or doing far better than we are?

Today's entry was a bit of a rant.  But cripes people.  What a mess!  What a mess that will only worsen with every tax increase.  And every failure to cut spending.  

Yeah, Governor Malloy is going to fix things alright.  We are about to get fixed real good.

The original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/