Drinking Liberally in New Milford

Overtaxation with No Oversight: The Internal Service Fund

2011-03-21T09:40:00.001-04:00

Since Mayor Murphy took office, the citizens of New Milford have been overtaxed to create discrete government piggy bank. The over-taxation has led to the bloating of the Internal Service Fund (ISF) by a whopping 170%. The ISF has grown 2.5 times higher than the town’s healthcare premiums. This overtaxing of citizens has continued to take place even after Murphy’s administration publicly agreed to proper management of the fund in 2008. It’s time for this fund to undergo a proper forensic audit so citizens can be assured their tax dollars are fully accounted for – and returned to them.

On February 8, 1993, the Town Council passed a resolution establishing the Medical Reserve Fund, which is now the Internal Service Fund. It is used specifically to keep track of medical insurance premiums coming in, and payments for medical claims going out. The money coming in is paid by employees and retirees of both the Town and the Board of Education. The ISF funds health insurance for a majority of town employees: police officers, clerical staff, teachers, administrators, etc.

Here’s what important about the 1993 Town Council resolution: it specifically states, “… making deposits into the fund reserve shall be to maintain the fund reserve balance at a level which stays between twenty percent and thirty percent of the total Annual Medical Expense Estimates.” To repeat: between twenty percent and thirty percent. Not below 20%, and not above 30%. Pretty clear, right?

The minimum of 20% was set up to cover extremely high medical costs not covered by a single year’s premiums. The 30% maximum limit was set up to prevent overtaxation and to ensure timely and proper oversight. Pretty clear, right?

Prior to Mayor Murphy’s administration, the last fiscal year for former Mayor Gambino was 2003/2004. According to the town’s annual financial audit for 2003/2004, the ISF had $2,629,570 in Total Net Assets. For that same year, the actual medical premiums were $7,786,144. The amount necessary to meet the 20% of premiums is $1,557,229. At this point, the ISF was overfunded by $1,072,341, or at a level of 33.8%. This is 3.8% higher than the maximum funding allowed.

Here’s a very important point: the funding level in 2003/2004 was enough to cover the 20% of premiums in 2008/2009 (the last year of audited data). Not one additional taxpayer dollar was necessary during the entire Murphy administration.

But the overfunding and overtaxation - with no oversight - were ready to explode.

The annual percentage of funding grew far above thirty percent upper limit. 2004/2005: 35.5%; 2005/2006: 49.6%; 2006/2007: 53.4%; 2007/2008: 56.3%; 2008/2009: 54.0%.

According to the audit reports for the Murphy administration, the ISF net assets have grown to $6,327,551. That’s a whopping $3,697,981 million more than Mayor Gambino. The ISF net assets grew by the following annual amounts: 2004/2005 - $607,115; 2005/2006 - $1,864,570; 2006/2007 - $454,861; 2007/2008 - $738,532; 2008/2009 - $32,903.

You could look at the last audited year (08/09) and think the town has finally made an effort to slow down the overfunding. However, nothing could be further from the truth. That year, the Murphy administration used $1,000,000 of ISF funds to offset budget expenses. So, instead of the fund dropping by $1 million, it actually grew slightly because overbudgeting pumped $1 million back into the ISF.

If you’re going to use $1 million to offset budget expenses, why overtax citizens by $1 million? What kind of oversight is taking place? Is there any oversight – or just overbudgeting and overtaxation?

What’s also amazing is how the growth of the ISF is much higher than the rise in the town’s health care premiums. From 2004 – 2009, premiums rose by 50%. But the ISF grew by 140%, and the overfunding of the ISF grew by 271%. What kind of oversight is there when an already overfunded account nearly triples healthcare premiums? Simply stunning.

Prior to 2008, had anyone paid attention to the ISF? The Mayor and Director of Finance never said a word about it – or the overfunding. However, once members of the Board of Education started asking questions about the millions in overfunding, action was “suddenly” taken. A short term accounting review was done (only covering two years of overfunding), and the Mayor decided to take the $1 million out of the fund. In the accounting review, there was a recommendation “that the Town periodically settle the interfund receivable and payable balances.” And, at the Board of Education meeting April 14, 2008, the Director of Finance said the BOE contributions for 2008/2009 looked good. But what has happened since?

• Despite the Director of Finance claiming the numbers looked good for 2008/2009, the ISF still grew by $1 million
• The Mayor used $1 million for budget expenses in 2008/2009
• The Interfund receivable and payable balances – in excess of $2.5 million - have not been resolved as of the last audit

It appears that when taxpayers look away from the ISF, nothing changes. Overtaxing and overbudgeting with no oversight remains the status quo.

Taxpayers and town employees need to demand the following:
• A forensic audit of the ISF dating back to fiscal year 2004/2005
• Accounting of funds contributed by employees, Town, and BOE
• Reconciliation with the health insurance consultant to ensure past practices will no longer be the norm
• A transparent process of health care budgeting

It’s time to expect Mayor Murphy to follow the 1993 Town Council Resolution. Taxpayers and town employees deserve oversight – not overtaxation.

HT Gives "Thumbs Up" to NM School Budget

2011-02-09T11:39:00.004-05:00

Here are a few snippets from the 2/4/11 editorial in The Housatonic Times.

"...all those who assemble the proposed education budget went into the current process with new resolve to craft a package that met all the needs and would also be politically palatable. Better communication was established between the school board and Town Council and Board of Finance, concessions were secured from unions representing school district employees and more."

"The recently unveiled result is a $58,194,266 budget for the next fiscal year that carries a modest 2.19 percent increase in spending. Those numbers are more impressive when one considers a very significant and overdue change this budget would effect: the introduction of full-day kindergarten."

"This year, as the proposed education budget moves through the process of scrutiny and approval, officials and taxpayers must be mindful of the hard work that has been masterfully done by school administrators and the school board to craft a plan that meets the district's needs at a very fair price."

OK - let's review the key phrases:

modest 2.19 percent increase
hard work
masterfully done
a plan that meets the district's needs
very fair price

Those aren't my words - they're 100% Housatonic Times.

Sorry to say, but this editorial is not posted on-line. You'll have to purchase the Housatonic Times to read it, but it's worth the $1!

G! E! T! S! (bud) GETS! (bud) GETS! (bud) GETS!

2011-01-25T21:51:00.010-05:00

(Oh, was that too soon, Jets fans? Suck it up. Love, The Patriots Nation.)

Forget football, it’s budget season again!

And even though we paid all those pesky teachers last year, they want money again this year. So, of course, it will be controversial.

There are several things in play this year.

The school is (at this time) asking for a 2.3 percent increase over last year’s budget. Which has remained frozen for the last 2 years. So, it’s a 2% increase over the 2008-09 budget. This, no doubt, is giving plenty of non-school-supporters the vapors and the heebie-jeebies. (Just for comparison, Brookfield is asking for a 3.8% increase.)
The school and the town are theoretically working with a new spirit of cooperation and communication, thanks to the Ad Hoc committee’s work of the past few months.
The Town Council, in response to citizen requests, is considering streaming budget hearings online this year. (The BoE already does this). If this comes to pass, it will be a welcome improvement in transparency.

So. Let's take these points apart.

1. BoE Budget Hearings.

Here is the first budget hearing at the BoE:

http://www.theeventisonline.com/NewMilford/nmboe011811.html

The first 20 minutes or so is the Superintendent’s presentation. After that, principles from the 3 elementary schools, Sarah Noble, and SMS do a Q&A with board members. (The high school presented on 1/20; 1/25 will focus on maintenance, utilities, general admin, and capital; 1/26 will be when the BoE votes on the whole package). The presentation is, perhaps, the most important part for people who want an overview of what the school system is looking to accomplish.

The biggest change is the request for full-day kindergarten.

Let me preface my remarks by saying I have 0 future kindergartners in my household, nor am I a past, present, or future employee of the school system, so I have no personal stake in what I’m about to say.

Full-day kindergarten is a great, great, great idea.

Full-day kindergarten will cement the basic skills needed to excel in school. Reading, writing and ‘rithmatic of course, but other less testable skills, like sharing, working in groups, taking direction, and problem-solving, all get a workout in full-day kindergarten. This is critically important when one realizes that 43% of this year’s New Milford kindergartners did not attend preschool.

In fact, the value of a solid kindergarten program can be calculated in dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28leonhardt.html

“Students who had learned much more in kindergarten were more likely to go to college than students with otherwise similar backgrounds. Students who learned more were also less likely to become single parents. As adults, they were more likely to be saving for retirement. Perhaps most striking, they were earning more.

“All else equal, they were making about an extra $100 a year at age 27 for every percentile they had moved up the test-score distribution over the course of kindergarten. A student who went from average to the 60th percentile — a typical jump for a 5-year-old with a good teacher — could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.

“The economists don’t pretend to know the exact causes. But it’s not hard to come up with plausible guesses. Good early education can impart skills that last a lifetime — patience, discipline, manners, perseverance. The tests that 5-year-olds take may pick up these skills, even if later multiple-choice tests do not.”

(For non-school-age-kid-parents, having an all-day kindergarten curriculum will enhance property values. Maybe not by $230,000, but certainly enough to impact the time a house is on the market. Even in a recession. Or, to tip the scales for a buyer looking at houses in both Brookfield - where they have 3 days of full-day kindergarten a week - and New Milford. Just sayin’.)

Full-day kindergarten has been part of the strategic plan for quite some time. Several years ago, JPS had a pilot program: 1 class of full-day K. Those kiddos are now in 3rd grade, and most of them still outstrip their half-day peers. Know why it didn’t continue, or expand? Budget cuts.

So, why bring the subject up now? Because of the federal stimulus grant money.

The school has $698,000 to spend before September 2012. It can only be spent on personnel (not surprising, since it’s called The Education Jobs Fund). Since the money did not come until after the school year was underway (and classes, schedules and workloads were set), most of it has yet to be spent, though the BoE has hired 2 literacy coaches and is looking for 1 math coach. So the Superintendent is proposing to spend the bulk of this money on hiring 9 kindergarten teachers.

Of course, there will be push-back on this. “Why not rehire all the teachers we let go last year?” (Because many of them got jobs elsewhere has apparently not occurred to these questioners. And because recalling teachers in the middle of a school year is ridiculously disruptive. For good or ill, we have the teachers we have for this year.)

“How will we pay their salaries the next year?” when the grant money is gone, is another question. In part, salaries will be paid for by the savings to the transportation budget. Midday bus runs for kindergarteners costs $127,000 yearly. (And while one BoE member wondered where all those kindergartners would go on the regular buses, there is apparently ample room on our existing buses).

A skeptical BoE member asked, “What will we do if we have to cut staff positions in the next budget?” I don’t get this line of questioning. What are we supposed to do? Hire no one, and don’t use the federal money? Hire a bunch of teachers on a 1-year contract? Or realize that every year, non-tenured teachers are potential victims to budget cuts?

(Another BoE member said, cryptically, in response to the principles' call for consistency between the three elementary schools, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small-minded." This person was apparently quoting Lewis Carroll. Does anyone know what the heck that quote is supposed to mean?! If I wasn't trying to be nice, I'd say something like, "I'll smoke some of what's in their hookah," but I'm trying to stay civil.)

* * * * *

[update]

It has been brought to my attention (by an English teacher) that the "consistency hobgoblin small minds" quote is not from Lewis Carroll. I looked it up: it's really the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson. (The speaker said it was from Carroll, and I, in my hubris, forgot to verify it with Google).

http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html

And, as you can see, it's misquoted as well as misattributed. The full quote is:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Well. Reading all the words changes the meaning significantly, but it makes even less sense applied to education in New Milford. I'll leave it up to you to decide if said person is a little statesman, philosopher or divine (my money is on "member of the Michael Steele Book Club"). I guess I'll take back my hookah quip, because Emerson also once said, "Alcohol is a good preservative for everything but brains." (I know, I know hookahs are tobacco and ... other smokeables, not booze, but Ralph was curiously silent on hookahs.)

* * * * *

In my humble opinion, full-day kindergarten is an excellent investment. The more instruction students get on the from end of their education, the better they will progress in the higher grades. Frankly, I’m jealous that I don’t have a future kindergartner to benefit from this.

There are other things to applaud in the proposed school budget, including restoring the general music instruction at SNIS, and creating “head teacher” positions in each school, to preserve a chain of command when the principal and vice principal are unavailable (since several vp’s are half-time positions, and principals are regularly called off campus for meetings, this is more common than one would think). But full-day kindergarten is the most visionary piece of the proposal.

BTW, here’s part deux (that’s French for “two,” which I know because when I was in school, my town believed in funding the foreign language department. I could also sing it to you, because my middle school also had a music teacher. But I digress.) which focuses on the high school:

http://www.theeventisonline.com/NewMilford/nmboe011911.html

2. Ad-Hoc Committee Report.

The Ad Hoc Committee with the impossibly long name made its report to the Town Council. And they presented three “big ideas,” which are actually pretty good ideas.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Milford-Town-Council-approves-matching-funds-116391.php

Even if they seem a tad “You haven’t been doing this already?” ideas. (Five months to discover “We need to communicate better between branches.” Ja think?) Still, at least that is a step forward. If the Town Council and the Board of Education can actually work as if they are on the same team (as they should), instead of opposite sides, maybe budget season wouldn’t feel like a medieval siege.

I don’t have much more to say on this at this time, except to roll my eyes at the insta-roadblocks that seem to derail even the baby steps forward. Read through these minutes to learn about what I am affectionately calling “the saga of the boilers.”

http://170.163.202.12/Weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=78012&dbid=0

The Ad-Hoc committee noted that both town and school buildings needed some new boilers, decided that a joint purchase would be cheaper than a piecemeal approach, and thought to tap the Waste Management Fund, which would keep the purchase from impacting tax payers. But, I guess, the WMF can’t fund boilers. (Tennis Courts? Yes. Boilers? No. Which I still don’t get. But then, I’m not on the Town Council or the Board of Finance. And they apparently didn’t know either, since their Ad Hoc representatives thought using the WMF was a good idea.) Alas, alack.

The mayor suggested the funds come from capital reserve accounts. Which sounds good, until you remember all the recent TC criticism of how the BoE handles capital reserve. (Last year, that account was supposed to be only used for emergencies. But, I guess that’s sooooo 2009).

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Milford-Town-Council-approves-matching-funds-116391.php

This purchase would draw that fund down to the dregs, and then, I’m sure no end of angry blog posts will condemn that “irresponsible” behavior. (And I ask you: why can town employee raises come out of a “fringe account” or a “contingency fund” but not boilers? Or at least fix the stupid railroad crossing downtown?!) But, the powers that be have vowed to “look around” for the money, so maybe there’s another stash of cash somewhere. (Couch cushions?)

3. All this brings me to my next point, which is all about greater transparency.

The Ad-Hoc committee proved, if nothing else, that greater communication between branches of local government will lead to greater efficiency. The quickest way to facilitate communication is greater transparency, and easy access to each other.

One of the best ways the Town could improve transparency would be to stream its meetings online. As I’ve said (and as you’ve seen, if you clicked the links at the top of this post) the BoE already does this (without costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg).

While the Town Council has made noises suggesting they will look into this, I hope they come through for the budget hearings at least.

[UPDATE: Miracles do happen. As I was drafting this post, the town’s website suddenly underwent a major overhaul, and lo and behold, web streaming of (some) Town Council meetings!

http://www.newmilford.org/content/2099/default.aspx

Here’s the presser:

http://www.newmilford.org/controls/NewsFeed.aspx?FeedID=418

according to which, this has been just waiting to happen for years, but, I really don’t think it’s a coincidence that several people requested the Town Council do this very thing at the January 10th meeting:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/default/article/New-Milford-residents-want-more-public-access-to-955698.php

http://www.housatonictimes.com/articles/2011/01/14/opinion/letters/doc4d307260a4c8c550191538.txt

Well, whatever. Thank you, powers that be! And thank you, citizens who asked that it be done!]

When watching the TC and BoE hearings (and really, what else are you going to watch this winter? The SuperBowl?) (Still too soon?) be sure to pay attention to how people speak to - and about - each other. Last year, budget season birthed a whole slew of misinformation. I’m sure this year will have its share of pearl-clutching and name-calling. (For proof, I offer this:

http://nmbudgetfacts.com/

This gem of a webpage started as a reprint of a screed from a Town Council meeting last April. But it quickly grew into a smear campaign against the BoE. (And, maybe you remember those signs? Which basically quoted these talking points? Almost like it was a coordinated effort to bring down the school budget before the hearings even started?)

Well, a new year, a new campaign. Right?

So the site’s been updated. At least in the right-hand corner.

But right below it, all the tired old misdirection from last year remains, including the “Why I won’t vote for this budget” rant. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, gets updated. (I note 0 complaints about budget transfers and transparency regarding the Town Council’s move to give town employees 2% raises retroactive to July, even though The Good Citizens of New Milford Never. Approved. Those. Raises.)

As Linda Richman would say, “New Milford Budget Facts . Org is neither ‘new’ nor ‘facts’ nor an ‘org.’ Discuss.” (And! All! Those! Exclamation! Points! Are! Annoying!)

At any rate, I urge everyone to take anything they read on blogs (except this one! wink wink) with a grain of salt, and go straight to the source. Look over the school and town budget proposals. Attend the hearings, or at least watch them on line. The process is transparent and public participation is welcome. Educate yourselves. And for goodness’s sakes, go vote.

[update #2]

I've finally viewed all the BoE budget presentations. I have this to add:

1. I was really taken with NMHS Principal Shugrue's passionate, articulate presentation. Particularly his explanation as to why we can't simply replace teachers with robots. (I know. Who'd have guessed that would be a real conversation?) (OK. No one actually said "robots." They said "technology." But they were thinking "robots.")

Principal Shugrue outlined what he considered to be the top skills needed by every high school graduate in the early 20th century.

They include the ability to:

-collaborate

-think critically

-speak articulately

-work in a group

-take ownership of students' own learning

Amen.

(BTW, I was also taken with the other principals' presentations, but I've pretty much hit their highlights above).

2. I was pleased to see a true integration of ideas between schools. (Guess what? All-day kindergarten enhances the chances a kiddo will graduate having mastered the above list. It's almost like the school is following some kind of long-range, strategic plan ....)

3. Addressing students with special education needs is a growing challenge. 600+ students currently fall into this category. (And no, this doesn't apply to the mythical "I'm gonna say I have a special need so I can get out of doing homework" slacker-student. These are real students, with real needs.) The more proactive we can be as a school district whether it be (wait for it) all-day kindergarten, summer school (and, yes, offering bus service to summer school is a good idea. It's not catering to "bad parents," as some seemed to be suggesting. Some people can't choose between work and summer school for their kid.)

4. The mayor was on hand for the last hearing. She asked for hard numbers about the kindergarten program. Should we cue the ominous music, or should we expect another "The mayor's office has been working on this for years!" presser?

Stay tuned ........

A Real Public Option In Connecticut?

2011-01-06T12:53:00.003-05:00

And so it would seem.

The other day for an open thread at ePluribus Media I commented on "the intended public option that should be Sustinet in Connecticut," and it would seem that is to be the case if the Sustinet Health Partnership Board of Directors get their way according to the report they handed in to the Connecticut General Assembly. Jon Walker has the key report paragraphs at FDL and summerizes it all too well, as anyone that has followed Healthcare reform closely would be aware of these realities:

Connecticut Informed That Private Insurance Exchanges Are Bad Deals for Consumers, Taxpayers
...snip...
This report demonstrates what a horrible deal the system of subsidized, loosely-regulated private health insurance exchanges is for both the uninsured and the taxpayers. Using a public health insurance program, the state of Connecticut will be able to provide low income Americans a higher level of coverage at lower personal cost and it will still have a lower overall price tag for the government.
The only entities for whom the design of private exchanges is a good deal are the drug companies, hospitals, and private insurance companies. The exchanges assure customers for the unnecessary private insurance middlemen. Loose regulation of the exchanges prevents the government from using the market power of a large pool to negotiate with the drug companies and hospitals for lower prices, and so they get higher reimbursement fees.

It seems like they might as well being making the argument for a "Medicare for All!" solution but even as only a Public Option it would force the private insurers into an honest battle for customer base, IMHO, much like the Swiss model which is leaps and bounds better than the American model we are trying to reform.

Anyways, maybe we will have a real horse race to compare models of healthcare reform?

State Healthcare Reform Horse Race
...snip...
As we mark the passing of the latest phase of health reform laws implemented on January 1st (scroll the comments there and you will see some interesting comments pointing to what I mean about cost controls and other issues, OK?), the six states Politico suggests following are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Wisconsin for various reasons ranging from the most resistant to reform in Alaska, to the intended public option that should be Sustinet in Connecticut, and all the way over to the Single Payer movement in Vermont. I would not count Single Payer as out of the question in California, either, though there is no mention of that large movement behind it.

Still All That I Want

2010-12-23T09:38:00.002-05:00

Something that gets lost in the news about the unemployed is the fact that much of what used to be the backbone of this nation's economic prowess, the middle class, is now the working poor:

Imagine That: Working Poor On The Rise

After the Republicans crashed to economy in 2008 one thing became immediately clear. It would not be the folks who can afford it who would pay for the excesses of the last few decades. No, the elitist millionaires in Congress and the White House would make sure they kept their precious tax breaks. Yes, the only group that would be expected to sacrifice just like always would be the working American. Now a new study is out showing just how much they did sacrifice.

One can only hope that Capitol Hill is really ready to grow its heart a few sizes before things get any worse. But if the media and the politicians are unable to even address the issue of Class War honestly, I can't see them actually fixing the problems. Not in the the favor of the average American, for certain.

An early Merry Christmas OR Happy Holidays, if you are so inclined, just in case this is the last post you get to check before you disappear into a pile of wrapping paper, empty bottles and hugs from family and friends.

As for my own Christmas list this year? Well? If you see Santa, tell him that as much as I liked everything from my wife and kids and even what I found in my stocking last year? All that I wanted last year is still all that I want this year:

The Weepies beautiful Christmas song, All That I Want, live in Philly:

I really want for nothing for myself. There are so many things that I want to see changed in the world for the good of everyone. World Peace? Stopping hunger? Ending poverty? Maybe I do want something: Wish me luck on getting those things.

Is there anything in particular you want for yourself or for others this year? Drop it in comment...

WWWWWWWWW.boardofeducationobstruction.edu

2010-12-22T16:49:00.000-05:00

Click on the above link, and it will take you to an interesting place. A place where obstruction is the norm, bad lawyering is the standard, lack of preparedness is encouraged, and focusing on the main mission is discouraged. Sounds beautiful, doesn't it? Here's the real name of this magical cyber spot:

What a Waste William Wellman Was While Wading through this Week's Work at the Board of Education

What was WW up to this time? As usual, not much. It seems all he's really able to do is abstain on voting for nearly every issue, and deliver legal opinions that are shot down by non-lawyers.

What doesn't WW do? Comment in any way, shape, or form on issues of education. And that's true for not just this meeting, but every meeting. Good thing he's on the board of EDUCATION, right? Maybe he thinks it's the board of Obstruction (but we'll get to that later).

To give you an idea how little WW cares about serving as a public official, he didn't cast vote for the election of BOE Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, or Secretary. He cares so little that he didn't even vote "no."

If you care so little, or can't even muster an opinion on your fellow board members, maybe it's time to resign. Public participation would be essentially equivalent for your current level of commitment to the voters.

Too bad there's no video of that "historic" vote.

But let's give the guy some credit: he later tried to show everyone what a great lawyer he was. Unfortunately, he was shot down by lay people - no judge required to hold him in contempt! He tried to impose his lack of legal knowledge on the rest of the BOE in an attempt to make it seem they hadn't done their homework to update the policy on expulsions. However, when the Superintendent, and Board members Lawson and Faulenbach, reminded him that all of the facts were already in the document, poor WW could only feign ignorance as a defense. Claiming he didn't have the appropriate page in front of him - which means he either didn't read the entire document or was simply choosing to ignore it - WW just chose to disagree.

Some lawyer you were, WW. The voters - and your colleagues on the BOE - hold you in contempt.
Pay a fine, spend a night in jail, or for your sake and ours, please resign.

As for the rest of the meeting, the poor old obstructor didn't say a word. No input on a variety of policies, a 5 year curriculum plan, new text books, etc. Why bother weighing in on education issues when you're on the board of obstruction???

Stop wasting your time - and ours. Stay home on Tuesdays. Watch college basketball, read a book, play the victrola. Send in a letter to the editor for your various objections. Make better use of your time - and your fellow citizens.

Tales From The Crypt - Tax Cuts and Bond Markets Edition

2010-12-12T13:00:00.001-05:00

Markets screeched in horror at the mere mention of conservative ideas like tax cuts, a GOP "free market" and glibertarian favorite stump speech talking point that should be laid to rest permanently:

For the past several months, we've been told by various Serious People that European governments were being punished by markets for being too lavish on social spending, despite bond rates being at record lows (other than in peripheral countries subject to more specific attacks) - or would be punished if they didn't "reform" and lower taxes. The same has been promoted in the US, via the Catfood Commission and the whole noise machine against deficits and stimulus packages... Well, the US government did just what the Serious People wanted, with a nice fat tax cut for the rich, and bond rates jumped - ie markets actually literally hated the measures, selling off US bonds violently.

Bwahahaha! RIP conservative tax cut kool-aid.
Considering al Qaeda's stated goals of destroying America economically... This kind of puts the conservative ideology of never-ending tax cuts firmly in the arsenal of a terrorist's financial Weapons of Mass Destruction (right up there with Credit Derivatives and Credit Default swaps) and those that support them... Well? In the words of an American idiot, "if you aren't with us, yer against us."

2010 New Milford Awards - Your Vote Counts!

2010-12-09T11:55:00.007-05:00

Grab a beverage and help us toast another banner year in New Milford history. While we won't be applauding most of the award winners, we can still say "cheers" as we raise our glass to their achievements. Make like Bridgeport: vote early, vote late, no official ballot necessary, and write-in nominations are welcome!

Favorite Republican Dirty Trick
* Appointing Dem. Rod Weinberg to BOE
* NMBudgetFacts.com (anonymous - or was it?)
* NMBudgetFacts.com roadside signs (also anonymous - or was it?)
* Mayor and Szendy claim no raises for employees - then attempt to grant raises three months later

Best Example of Gutless Public Service
* Town Council Republicans silent vote to reduce school budget by $1.8 million
* Ray O'Brien's "Civility Rule" attempt to limit free speech
* Walter Bayer failing to second a motion by his fellow Dem. council member
* Mayor Murphy unable to say whether or not she supported her budget at the Annual Town Budget Meeting

Clueless is an Understatement Award
* Mayor Murphy for not doing any homework in a failed attempt to pass an ordinance to control the BOE's purchasing policy (The BOE's purchasing policy was better than the town's!)
* BOE Member Bill Wellman for being on the board nearly three years and not understanding how field trips are funded by the PTO (even though it's on the agenda every meeting!)
* BOE member Lynnette Rigdon (no explanation necessary)
* Roger Szendy states concern that the new Economic Development Corporation could vote themselves salaries of $100,000 (Yes, and they could vote themselves a trip to Mars, too)

Worst Person in the Town Award
* TC member Ray O'Brien for his "Civility Rule," and claiming that approving a 0% teacher's contract was like having a gun held to his head
* Mayor Murphy for not supporting her budget for the first time in 7 years, and for claiming no raises for non-union employees and then claiming they were "in the budget" three months later
* The Entire RTC for not condemning it's members who organized NMbudgetfacts.com
* Walter Bayer for pretending to be a "D" while attending the RTC's Reagan Dinner and other "R" functions - and contributing money to the R's in the process

Vote Now - Vote Early - Vote Often! And don't forget your beverage to toast the winners. Cheers!

Rell's Big Spending Bureaucratic Republican Cronyism

2010-12-02T14:25:00.001-05:00

Cementing Her Excellency, Governor M. Jodi Rell's legacy:

Connected Appointee Gets Immediate Raise
www.courant.com

Jacqueline Mandyck of West Hartford — a political appointee of Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell's who had stood to lose her job as a $107,000-a-year deputy commissioner of consumer protection in January, but on Oct. 22 landed a position on the permanent state civil-service payroll — has experienced still another bit of good fortune.

Newly surfaced records show that the announced $103,580-a-year salary for her new job at the state Department of Economic and Community Development was immediately increased by more than $10,000, to $113,623.

...snip...

Mandyck, 43, knows Rell's powerful chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody, as well as Moody's longtime friend and golfing partner, the well-connected lobbyist Paddi LeShane. Mandyck was the focus of a Government Watch column in the Courant on Sunday about a number of Rell administration appointees being placed in jobs on the permanent state payroll rather than becoming unemployed after Democratic Gov.-Elect Dan Malloy takes office on Jan. 5. Other candidates scored higher than Mandyck on an examination, but an interview panel led by Rell appointees said she did better in her interview.

Emphasis mine, because lord knows GOP cronies should not have to suffer through the same unemployment problems - problems they caused with their glibertarian* free-market-run-amok deregulation of financial industries out the ying yang - that the rest of America has to suffer through in the real world.

So Rell is using the taxpayer's money as an ATM to pay for her friends' parting gifts in the typical IOKIYAR "Big Spending Government Bureaucracy" the GOP likes to create and break when they are in power and then point to as the problem when they are not in power.

* Glibertarian and, again, emphasis mine:

—a portmanteau of glib and libertarian, a person who affects libertarianism when it’s convenient. Used by those not ready to admit that all libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to “I got mine, fuck you”, or by those attempting to be polite to libertarians.

Thanks, Aunt Myrtle. Now, put the gun down.

2010-11-19T22:02:00.003-05:00

As fun as it would be to keep talking about national politics, it’s probably time to return my gimlet eyes to local politics.

(Wait! one last sip:
How awesome are Republicans? They may be drunk with victory, but boy, are they mean drunks!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/gops-top-tax-guy-republicans-will-block-permanent-middle-class-tax-cut.php?ref=fpb

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/mitch-mcconnell-earmark-ban_n_783767.html

And then there’s this fresh Hell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyWKlxNAh30

Can you feel the brain cells die as you watch? I know the mere thought of those two getting into a “situation” together makes me never want to let anyone have sex. With anyone. Ever. Again.)

Ok. Gasp! Ok.

No more capitol cocktails. The hypocricy could kill a person. Local brews. Local brews.

So. Been to a Town Council meeting lately? Or are you too busy trying to decide if you should support the Bush Tax Cut sunset? Well. You might be able to catch the meetings on cable access. If you keep the tv on channel 17 for the rest of your life. (Better than DWTS at least).

At the November 8th meeting, the Town Council weighed in (almost!) on the teacher contracts.

What teacher contracts? Oh. These:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/default/article/A-pay-freeze-New-Milford-teachers-agree-to-do-680250.php

Let's pause here. This is a big deal. New Milford teachers and the town’s Board of Education, reached an amicable agreement in July, over salaries and benefits for the next academic year. The upshot is that teachers are accepting a pay freeze. They have also agreed to slightly higher copays for some medical visits. And they did this without a lengthy and expensive arbitration process. So. Tax payers: hug a teacher. And also a BoE member.

Now. Onc e the contract is approved by the teachers and the BoE, it goes on file with thew Town Clerk. Note the date of the article (September 29th). And count 30 days forward. According to the town charter, that’s how much time the Town Council has to approve, reject, or decline to notice, the new contract. The Mayor and TC chose the latter course, but it seems it’s because someone forgot to count.

I guess the Mayor and TC wanted to say something about the contracts, but didn’t realize the contract had been filed (do none of them read the local paper? This was big news), or that they only had a 30-day window. Which, given how long most TC members (not to mention the Mayor) have served this community, seems a little odd. But not as odd as this explanation, from the meeting minuntes:

“[A Councilman] asked why the Town Council was not notified that the agreement was submitted to the Town Clerk. Mayor Murphy stated that it is not required to.”

See? “It is not required.” That’s logical and satisfying, isn’t it?

I know. But … given that the TC agenda from October 25th included this item:

“Mayor Murphy told Town Council members if they know of anyone whom they think should be recognized for something they have done in the community or another accomplishment, they should let her know.”

And, given that the BoE successfully negotiated an even more recent contract, this time with school administrators, also with a $0 salary increase, also with concessions on benefits, also without arbitration

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/New-Milford-school-administrators-avoid-798796.php

it’s not like there wasn’t anything worth commenting on.

(Um, Mayor Murphy, how’s about thanking the teachers, adminitrators, and the BoE for agreeing to a pay freeze, and saving tax payers money!?! Too much to ask, I suppose.)

Well, even though the magic 30 days had passed, preventing the TC from epxressing their official dis/approval of the contracts, some members exercised their First Amendment right to free speech, and comment less officially at the November 8th meeting.

“Mr. Bass stated that all parties should be thanked. Mayor Murphy thanked all those involved for a good job including those people in the audience from the Board of Education.”

At the risk of sounding ungenerous, these “thanks” were recited with all the passion and sincerity of an 8-year-old thanking their Aunt Myrtle for a hand-knit Christmas sweater.

But, wait, there was more! Following the national trend of seeing one’s first amendment and raising you the second amendment, Councilman Raymond O’Brien had this to say:

“Mr. O’Brien stated that the Town Council usually approves contracts ‘with a gun to our heads’ because it is always told that if they don’t approve the contracts, they would go to arbitration and the town would lose.”

Of course, he isn’t exactly accurate on how the process works. I’ve looked in the Town Charter, and it really doesn’t say “After contract is filed with Town Clerk, a gun will be placed to the Town Council’s head until they vote their approval. If they reject the contract, the Town will automatically lose in arbitration.” But then, my reading of the Health Care Reform Act didn’t turn up any Death Panels either. So, there might be a special ink, visible only to conservatives, involved here.

Well, Mr. O’Brien. Thanks for the statesmanlike response. Honestly. A gun to your head? There’s a lot I’d like to say in response to your stunning hyperbole (not to mention hypocrisy: how’s about that civility manifesto?), but it’s not printable.

But that’s not even the most incendiary part of his comments. There’s more:

“[Councilman O’Brien] would much rather be advised earlier so that the Town Council could have some meaningful input before it is filed with the Town Clerk.”

Ummm ……. Because that’s not how the system works.

So, what? Councilman O’Brien would like a seat at the bargaining table? Should Councilman O’Brien just write the contracts himeslf? Why not just let Councilman O’Brien be in charge of everything? Charter, shmarter.

Councilman Peter Mullen tried to dial back the crazy:

"Dr. Mullen stated that communication is great, but disagreed with O’Brien’s statement. He felt the Town Council is not forced to accept a contract. They are not told the Town will lose."

Yeah. Well. That and telling Sarah Palin she can’t see Russia from her house will get you a blank stare and a headache.

Look. I’m quibbling over a minor detail. The comments of a cranky man about teacher contracts that already passed really don’t add up to major policy.

It’s just so disheartening.

It’s just another casualty in the decline of civil discourse.

These contracts were the result of hard work, good will, community spirit, and mutual trust, on the parts of our educators and our Board of Education. They are an example of putting community before personal gain. The contracts are something to celebrate.

Is it too much to ask that people like Councilman O’Brien not spoil the moment with petty carping (while also attempting some sort of political coup where he actually gets to take the place of the BoE and the teachers’ union in deciding contracts)?

Would it be putting a (metaphorical!) gun to the Town Council’s heads to expect a sincere, full-throated “Thanks!”

Or is it too close to budget season?

(are those crickets?)

Don't Turn Your Back on the Bankers for Even a Moment

2010-11-18T14:19:00.002-05:00

The ink on the legislation is still drying and, already, the mortgage mill industry is trying to gut the little things that might help to hold them accountable for their bit part in the complete economic collapse of this nation:

Dodd-Frank requires that lenders retain five percent of every loan on their books, so that they are not completely separated from default risk. McClatchy reports that the banks are trying to quietly nix that part of the law:
Financial lobbyists also are working to soften requirements that Wall Street firms put more “skin in the game” by retaining more mortgage bonds on their books to guard against shoddy lending…They’re trying to expand the definition of “plain vanilla” mortgages that would be exempted from the risk-retention requirements. [...]
The [American Securitization Forum] and its members want to exempt interest-only mortgages, which caused many unsophisticated borrowers to lose their homes. “Certain types of loans aren’t standard, but are appropriate for high creditworthy borrowers,” Deutsch said in an interview, pointing to wealthy borrowers who seek to maximize their mortgage-interest deductions at tax time.
During the debate over Dodd-Frank, the banks pushed Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) to propose an amendment (which was ultimately defeated) striking the risk-retention provision from the bill. It’s no surprise that during the law’s rule-making phase, they are trying to weaken it as much as possible.

Nevermind the fact that their argument boils down to "What about the rich people and their tax deductions?" Just in case you missed that last part that Think Progress had not emphasized:

Deutsch said in an interview, pointing to wealthy borrowers who seek to maximize their mortgage-interest deductions at tax time.

"Leave the rich aloooooone!!!"

Does not matter what the issue, nor their political affiliation for the most part... That is always the battle cry and once the lobbyists dump enough money on them or get enough of their corrupted politicians in place you can bet these tiniest of common sense changes will be gutted.

Sarah Palin: Mayor of New Milford?

2010-11-11T21:13:00.000-05:00

Is this a parody or real life? You decide.

Citizens of New Milford:
I want you to know that I'm on the job 24/7. Twenty four hours a week, seven months a year. But even with this strict time commitment, I can't be expected to keep up with everything going on in this vast metropolis. That's why I like this job - I've got plenty of other folks to do the work.

Not that I seek to blame everyone else for my problems, but everyone seems to be conspiring to keep important topics hidden from my highly skeptical spectacles. Even the Town Clerk couldn't seem to get me a copy of the new teacher's contract, cuz he knows I want to tear them teachers up for their greedy, self-serving ways. I know it's a good 30 paces from his office to mine, so that old buzzard would have to send one of his four staffers all the way down here. But, heck, how else am I supposed to know about these things?

How was I supposed to know New Milford's teachers took a Zero % increase next year? And they agreed to pay more for health insurance, too. Who would have ever thought the teachers and the Board of Education would ever take me and Roger Szendy seriously?

Do you think I - or one of my 40+ staffers - have time to read about this in the News-Times, Spectrum, or Housatonic Times? That's just plain crazy - we've got other things to do. Why, just the other day I had to count votes for Linda McMahon, and drive Clark around to some meeting at a funeral home. Who's got time to read?!

I'm a momma black bear (no grizzlies in these parts). I'll guard my cubs with my life, and you, the citizens of New Milford, are my cubs. You've got to trust that I'm doing all the right things, even if I don't really pay much attention to them. A momma black bear would never deliberately hide money for raises in the budget, or hire kin-folk on the public payroll. Now, she might ask someone else to do those things, but you must trust that I'm doing good by you.

And don't ask no stupid questions, ya hear? Luv Ya!

Signed,

Your Mayer

Much like the "conservative" GOP...

2010-11-05T23:38:00.004-04:00

The conservative Blue Dogs acted as Bush's domestic poodles, helping to move a dangerous right wing agenda.

They were owned by the right wing and corporations and there is no big surprise why more than half of the Blue Dog caucus (28 of 54 members) were slaughtered in the 2010 elections.

So far, it looks like nearly half the Blue Dog Dems have been kicked out of office. That’s a much higher percentage of Dems than the Progressive Caucus lost tonight. I think it speaks loudly to why the Dems got their butts kicked today. This wasn’t Americans turning to the Republicans, which polls show Americans hate worse than Dems. This was Americans turning away from the Blue Dogs. The ones who sold us out to the corporatists.

This opens up some serious opportunities for progressives if we can capitalize on them two years from now. Without incumbency to aid them, the Dem Machine – which will be bringing more Blue Dogs to the table to replace the ones they lost – will have to win primaries against progressive alternatives in every Blue Dog seat.

Meanwhile in the Progressive Caucus?

Already the largest caucus in the Dem caucus, the Progressive Caucus lost only 4 members in the elections. And may even have gained a new one.

And the New Dems that had aligned with the idiocy of the Blue Dogs? They are decimated too:

Yesterday, in "Blue dogs decimated, blue dogs triumphant" I called attention to the Blue Dogs losing more than half their seats in Congress, and in "Fighting smart", I endorsed Big Tent Democrat's argument that progressives should start immediately "focus on Dem primaries for House seats."

To flesh out the argument further, yesterday at DKos, Chris compared the Blue Dogs, New Dems & Progressive Caucus, showing how drastically different they fared:

And the resulting swing in makeup of the House, making the Progressive Caucus the new plurality:

Check his post out for a chart with a much finer level of detail. But here's how Chris concluded:
Losing the House is painful, and will cause lots of problems for two years (or more). However, it does give us an opportunity to reshape the ideological composition of the House Democratic caucus in a positive way. Imagine if we can retake the House with the CPC maintaining this new plurality.
Clearly, the strategy Big Tent Democrat suggests would help us do precisely that.

Just so you know what BTD was talking about:

Creative Destruction
By Big Tent Democrat
A historic loss for the Democrats last night creates opportunities for progressives around the country. Now more than ever, the primary process should give progressive candidates chances to capture Democratic nominations around the country.

While the Beltway and The Third Way will argue that Democrats need to run moderate Republicans as their candidates in the next election, the reality is the Beltway and The Third Way can no longer get a single person elected in a Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) primary.The era of the smoke filled room is over.

Progressives can be the change they are looking for. But they need to start now. And they need to focus on Dem primaries for House seats.

As Rahm Emanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Progressives should not waste this one.

In case you wanted the list of Blue Dogs that were crushed... Some Puppy Ciao furnished by Meteor Blades:

As for the departed Blue Dogs, we can do without their sabotage which did so much to deliver House Democrats into the minority. Only seven of the defeated 22 had served more than two terms in the House. Rep. Gene Taylor (MI-04), the longest serving defeated member, was first elected in 1988. So was John Tanner, who opted out of running this year. But 16 of them were first elected in 2006 or 2008. Here they all are, with the year they were first elected.

Mike Arcuri (NY-24) 2006; R. Marion Berry (AR-01)  (Retired) 1996; Allen Boyd (FL-02) 1996; Bobby  Bright (AL-02) 2008; Christopher Carney (PA-10)  2006; Travis Childers (MS-01)  2008; Jim Costa (CA-20) 2004; Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) 2008;  Lincoln Davis (TN-04)  2002; Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)  (Ran for Senate) 2006; Bart Gordon (TN-06)  (Retired) 1984; Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD)  2004; Baron Hill (IN-09)  1998 through 2004, 2006;Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD-01)  2008; Betsey Markey (CO-04) 2008; Jim Marshall (GA-08) 2002; Charlie Melancon (LA-03)  (Ran for Senate) 2004; Walt Minnick (ID-01) 2008; Harry  Mitchell (AZ-05)  2006; Dennis Moore (KS-03)  (Retired) 1998; Patrick Murphy (PA-08) 2006; Scott Murphy (NY-20) 2008;  Glenn Nye (VA-02) 2008; Earl Pomeroy (ND) 1992; John Salazar (CO-03)  2004; Zack Space (OH-18)  2006; John Tanner (TN-08) (Retired) 1988; Gene Taylor (MS-04)  1988; Charles Wilson (OH-06) 2006.

The four members of the Progressive Caucus who lost: Alan Grayson (FL-08) 2008; Phil Hare (IL-17) 2006; Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13) (defeated in primary) 1996; and John Hall (NY-24) 2006.

It seems like everybody on the left realizes the opportunity ahead of us all now that the Dems that had created some of the worst right wing policy and legislation have been crushed.

And we all know what we have to do... Get to work with an aim to run the primaries off of the map.

And there is a certain amount of humor in seeing a Tea Bagrrrr movement come to screeching halt in this Connecticut election.

And the biggest change Tea Party Inc. achieved? In other parts of the nation they made the lefts' job easier by helping to pick off the worst Democratic party members in the country while leaving the more reasonable politicians in office even stronger than they were before. And they have nearly completely destroyed the GOP while doing all of that for us.

Stop Drinking and Start Doing, Dem Dumb Dumbs

2010-11-05T11:30:00.005-04:00

Sober up, Dems.

You started sucking suds when you captured the Congress in 2006. Since 2008 you've been binge drinking with Congress and the Prez. You even nibbled on some hot wings and pub nuts. Burp!

And now the bartender just cut your drunk, lazy, liberal, progressive, leftie ass off. You dig, Dem dumb dumbs?

You thought you could just party like it was 1999. You can't take a beer bong and pour healthcare reform, trillions in spending and bailouts to fat cats down the average 'Merican's throat and not expect a fight. But, as usual, you didn't fight - you just kept doing Jager-bomb shots.

Let's not only blame the Prez for this election. Just go straight down the line - all the way to the grass root dumb dumbs who didn't lift a finger to dial up fellow dems to get them out of the bar and into the polls.

Too many Dems turned away after 2008, assuming the Prez and the Congressional majority would take care of "our" business. We drank up, while they did what we asked them to do. But, we didn't follow up on our end of the bargain - work our butts off to help them stay in office.

Look at yourself in the mirror. Can you say you worked as hard in 2010 as you did in 2008? Did you bring your neighbor to the polls? Did you give $$ to a candidate? If you didn't do that, how can you expect Joe the Bartender, Joe the Plumber, or any average Joe, to understand the complexities of the issues of the day?

How can you expect Joe to deal with this: the worst economy in two generations; soaring debt; jobs lost; home foreclosures, etc. That stuff scares the crap out of people. If you don't help them to understand that you're trying to solve their problems today - and for tomorrow - they're going to do exactly what they did: vote for the other team.

You have to expend energy to inspire 'Mericans to vote. Let's make a quick list of the "no shows" when it came to putting energy into this fall's campaign: Chris Dodd (thanks for nothing), the Prez, the Veep, Rahm "Windy City" Emmanuel, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. I'm sorry - you can't count the Prez's work in the final week as really getting it done; he should have been out there since labor day. Were you all having a beer in the Rose Garden?

Who deserves real credit for working his tail off? William Jefferson Clinton. He was busting his hump out there, putting his stent-laden heart on the line 24/7. Let's give the man some credit.

Learn from Bill: you have to work hard to win elections. Not other people - YOU! You have to get it done. You have to contribute time, energy, $$. If you can't contribute any of these, then you can't complain about the outcome.

To bring it back to a local level, look at Chris Murphy. He worked his butt off! I saw him in New Milford a few times - and I never saw Sam Caligiuri (if I had paid $100 to attend the RTC's Reagan Dinner, maybe I would have caught a glimpse of Sam C).

And I saw Ann Cutter (local Dem) leading Chris Murphy around the Harvest Festival. She worked hard the entire election cycle - organizing phone banks and other get out the vote efforts. Where was the rest of the local Dem leadership? Show up or shut up!

Here's the deal: You've gotta work hard lefties, or the righties are gonna kick your butt in 2012, too.

The People Have Spoken. And Their Message Is – Squirrel!

2010-11-03T23:59:00.004-04:00

So. What the heck happened last night?
The GOP picked up 60 seats in the House, effectively reversing their losses there from 2006 and 2008, and returning control of that body to them.
The GOP picked up some 6 seats in the Senate, but the Democratic Party retains control there.
The GOP picked up several governor seats as well.
And it was a very good night for the GOP in local races around the country.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate

I should be suicidally depressed, right?

Meh.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m disappointed as the next progressive. Disappointed in the party, in the party leadership (Doctor-Governor-Chairman Dean, we miss you and your 50 state strategy!), in knowing I’ll have to hear the phrase “Speaker Boehner” for the next 2 years, in every failed vote and compromise and missed opportunity of the last 2 years.

But.

I’m far more confused, or bemused, than angry or sad.
What I don't get is how non-sensical the results are, when taken as a whole.
Despite what the pollsters, the pundits, the media, the GOP leadership, and the defeated TEA-baggers who seemed unclear on what the words “concession speech” mean, all tried to tell us today, there is no single clear “message” to take away from this election.
The People Have Spoken, but they all spoke at once, and not many of them agreed with each other.

It's not that GOP victories don't make sense: I expected them. Incumbents always lose in the midterms; the economy still pretty much sucks; the major reforms and achievements of the past 20 months have been distorted or ignored; and the GOP has both a major “news” network, and a multi-national secret fundraising machine.
It’s the inconsistency behind those victories (and losses!) that don’t make sense.

Sarah Palin's candidates won some races, but lost spectacularly in other races. Including, it is widely assumed, in her home state of Alaska.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/sarah-palin-endorsements_n_778556.html

So, is Palin a king-maker, an idiot, or a stopped clock? (Or all 3?) But more importantly, when will her 15 minutes finally be over?! No one in the GOP wants her to run in 2012. She’s started to lash out at her party and supporters, just like she has for her entire political career. And OMG, when will her daughter stop dancing?

For all the “Throw the bums out!” anti-incumbent mentality of this season, several incumbents did quite well. Harry Reid is probably the most surprising incumbent victory, but he’s not the only successful “old guard” campaign. Barney Frank of MA held on to his seat (like anyone was surprised), after fending off a primary challenge from a dining room table, and a general election from a TEA Bagger. Here in CT, incmubent Chris Murphy beat challenger Sam Caligiuri by a very comfortable margin, even in Caligiuri’s own town.

True to form, the electorate was largely unimpressed by self-funders (buh-bye Linda McMahon and her WWE game-face, Meg Whitman and her maid, Carly Fiorina and her “So yesterday” campaign, Iott and his spectacular Nazi uniform, and almost everyone who ran using their own fortunes), even though the best way to beat a self-funded "outsider" is to be an "establishment Washington insider:” Welcome back, Senator McCain!
Speaking of Palin and McCain, they don’t seem likely to get the band back together for a reunion tour in 2012.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-mccain-demurs-over-future-support-of-a-2012-sarah-palin-presidential-bid/

But, if I were the kind of person to spread ugly rumors (and you may want to skip the rest of this sentence), I’d wager that they must have the best hate sex since Mary Matalin and James Carville.

Of course, Marco Rubio was a self-funded candidate, backed by Mama Grizzly, and a likely criminal to boot, and he, sigh, managed to win.

(I can’t even begin to explain Rand Paul. But then, I can’t explain much about Kentucky. Enjoy him. What other choice do you have?)

Several key races were nail-biting heart-breakers (Sestak-Toomey in PA, Giannoulais-Kirk in IL), that “shouldn’t” have been so close. Toomey would have beaten Specter in the primaries, if Specter hadn’t switched parties. And given the Blagojevich/Burris debacle in IL, and Giannoulais’ banking ties, it was time for Illinois residents to be disgusted by Democrats, instead of Republicans (who here remembers George Ryan?).

Other races were mind-numbing landslides: Ayotte over Shea-Porter in NH; Rubio-over Christ (and, I guess, Meek) in FL; Feingold-Johnson in WI.

Ayotte I understand. NH really is “ruggedly independent” state: I think they enjoy bucking trends, when they’re not setting them. They’ve flipped from GOP to Dem in 3 times in the last 20 years (Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Kerry by a nose), and chose Hillary over Obama in the democratic primary. Ayotte, despite Palin’s “Mamma Grizzly” merit badge, really isn’t a hardcore conservative.

http://www.270towin.com/states/New_Hampshire

Rubio was able to take advantage of the 3-way race in Florida. (The final tally was 50-29-20. So, if Meek had bowed to the pressure applied by Bill Clinton and dropped out, FL might have flipped to Christ, who would likely have caucused with the Democrats. Not that I blame Meek for running.)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html

Feingold I just don’t understand. WTF, Wisconsin? That was the electoral equivilent of pawning your grandmother’s heirloom jewelry for a few bucks at a Cash 4 Gold store, so you can go out on Friday night.

I especially don’t get this one from the TEA-bagger perspective. Feingold was anti-war and pro-campaign finance reform, things TEA-baggers are supposed to appreciate. It only makes sense if the TEA Party is really the GOP in a tea bag. (Oooooohhhhhhhhhh.)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Progressive-Pillar-Russ-Feingold-Crumbles-in-Wisconsin-5632

We lost too many progressives last night, but the Progressive Caucus is still in tact. But, voters kicked out half of our "Blue-Dog Democrats."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/blue-dog-coalition-gop-wave-elections_n_778087.html

I actually think this is a good thing.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Are-Democrats-Better-Off-Without-the-Blue-Dogs-5536

It hurts to lose the seats, and the committee chairs in the House. But. The Blue Dogs are not exactly helpful to getting progressive legislation passed. The GOP has been purging its ranks of moderates (and non-crazies). Blue-dogs sold out the progressive base of their own party to appease the more conservative voters in their own districts. This is poetic justice. And, it leaves room for more progressive candidates to emerge in those districts.

Because I think, the take-away message from this election is this: the American voter is impatient, underinformed, and impulsive. The entire electorate just said, “Squirrel!”

I say this because, although the Democrats took a “Shellacking” last night, it’s not because the electorate loves the GOP. They don’t.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/house-gop-disappoint-2012_n_778281.html

Seriously. The electorate just broke up with Barack Obama to go back out with the guy they know is going to cheat on them, and possibly beat them up.

Why?!

A few thoughts:

1. No one realized that Change doesn’t come by overnight FedEx. And so, like Americans in crisis (like, when the computer freezes) do, they started pounding all the buttons on the keyboard at once, hoping to make something work. The Obama administration, the Congress, the press, and the public, share responsibility for this communication fail.

2. They forgot the things the Obama administration, with the Democrats in congress (and really, not 1 GOPer), actually accomplished.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Or, if you can’t sit through the whole thing:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

There. FTFY, America.

3. Also, the country seems to have forgotten what the GOP did to us.
So, here:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/01/15/where-did-bush-go-wrong

4. The Citizens United Ruling from the Supreme Court really did unleash a vast Right-wing conspiracy. Really.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2462/

This has to be the worst ruling since Plessy v Ferguson. But, even that bone-headed ruling was eventually overturned. This too shall pass.

5. The media really, really, REALLY wanted to tell the “Democrats are in trouble” story, and so they did. (See my earlier post, http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2010/10/rope-what.html
about how off-the-mark the coverage of the Blumenthal-McMahon was. BTW, Blumenthal won by 10.5 points. It wasn’t even close.)

Here’s one thing that it wasn’t: a repudiation of “liberalism”

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/03/pundit

But. We’re back together with the cheating, punching, ex-boyfriend. What’s life going to be like now?

Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04elect.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/john-boehner-election-obama_n_778407.html

See? Obama’s aprty lost because they refused to compromise (which apparently means, “capitulated to all the opposition’s demands”). Now that the the tables have turned (sort of), we can expect …. NO Compromise from the GOP!

And they’re going to roll back Health Care Reform (here’s where I think Christine O’Donnell is speaking through them). Good luck getting past the Democratic-held Senate and the Presidential veto …. And the percentage of your constituents who actually would rather not go back to being without reform!

And they’re going to cut the budget: everything is on the table, except the stuff that’s not.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/eric-cantor-cant-explain-how-republicans-w

Good luck with that too.
Oh, and they're going to impeach Obama. Because he must have done something to deserve it. Even if they can't figure out what it is.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/darrell-issa-obama-must-answer-several-hundr

That'll get people back to work.

So basically, we’re looking at More. Of. The. Same. For another 2 years. From the GOP. And the TEA Party.

But. The Democrats may have learned something from this season.

For one, DADT is going to come before the legislature in the lame-duck session.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/11/after-midterms-obama-still-pus.html

And so are the Bush-era tax cuts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/11/03/extending-bush-tax-cuts-not-a-slam-dunk/

At this point, Dems have nothing to lose, and much face to gain, by going to the left on both of these issues. Even the outgoing Blue Dogs.

The Senate now has the opportunity to reform the rules for the filibuster. They should.
And congress, either in the lame-duck session, or in the new session, needs to address the debacle of Citizens United. Because whether they wear a powdered wig or an “I’m With Reasonable” t-shirt, the voters are pissed as all hell at the way campaigns are financed.

But whatever happens, I’m pretty sure by 2012, most voting Americans won’t remember who did what when. What they will care about is, whether or not they have a decently-paying job, and whether or not they have a home not in foreclosure. And I remain confident that the Obama administration, with or without a majority in congress, can make that happen.

As maddening as the electroate’s ADD is to endure, I take comfort in knowing that today’s Wunderkinds will be tomorrow’s bums. And today’s wave will collapse tomorrow. But, even though we swing back and forth and back and forth like a carnival ride, we still move foreward in the long term.

So I remain optimistic.

I turn to National Treasure, Jon Stewart, to put it all in perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/the-sanity-song-auto-tune_n_777050.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Veni, Vidi, Voting

2010-10-31T22:14:00.003-04:00

Hey all!
Gimlet Eyes just got back from the Rally To Restore Sanity in Washington, DC (did you see me? I was right in the middle! With a sign!) and now I’m fired up and ready to go.
First things first.
The rally was incredible. No, it wasn’t partisan. In fact, it really wasn’t political: Stewart didn’t even ask his attendees to vote, let alone to vote for a particular candidate or party. But it was not vague or unfocused. Stewart’s message was simple, beautiful, and smart: disagree with passion, but treat our fellow human beings with compassion. Think intelligently about political choices. And don’t believe everything in the media – particalarly the over-wrought, over-blown under-baked rhetoric.

No, I don’t know how many people were there (though reliable estimates range from 200,000-250,000), but it was probably exactly eleventy billion. Gimelt Eyes gave up on taking the metro out of there, and restaurants from China Town to 9th St were jammed (waiting times of 2 hours and more) for hours after. But it was a beautiful day, the crowd was friendly and respectful, and I did manage to squeeze into a pub for some post-rally nosh and libation.

Was the rally the best 3 hours of Stewart’s and Colbert’s career? No. But it was often funny, sometimes charming, and always smart. (And the Peace Train/Crazy Train/Love Train battle was pure genius.)

But what was the point of the rally? I think Arianna Huffington sumarized it brilliantly today on CNN’s Reliable Sources:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/31/rs.01.html

HUFFINGTON: Not at all. Because they [attendees who rode the HuffPo buses to the rally]wanted to have that sense of community and connection. And that was really what you observed all around the rally when you walked around. It wasn't just what was happening on stage, it was what was happening among people there.

And:

HUFFINGTON: Oh, you can go on shows and disagree with Republicans, or disagree with Democrats. And I do both. The question is, is what you are saying based on fact?

Then, in a moment of unintentional serendipity, Howard Kurtz made Stewart’s point about the stupidity of the media for him with this exchange:

KURTZ: But let's be candid. I mean, Jon Stewart appeals to you because he comes at his comedy and satire and criticism from a liberal point of view.

HUFFINGTON: Well, actually, if you watched his interview with the president, that was a tough interview.

KURTZ: We're going to play that later, but most --

HUFFINGTON: But he exposed the Achilles heel of the president. That's not a cheerleader interviewing the president.

KURTZ: Well, now, but it was somebody -- he came off as a disappointed liberal. But let's leave that interview aside. When I see clips of "The Daily Show" on "The Huffington Post," it's often securing Republican targets. You like that.

HUFFINGTON: Well, that's not at all actually what makes Jon Stewart special. What makes him and Colbert special is the fact that they use satire to speak truth to power. Whether that power is liberal, conservative, in the media, in politics, that's where the power comes from. And people will continue to see this sort of left- leaning show completely missing its appeal.

KURTZ: All right. I think I disagree with that.

Of course you do, Howard.

Ms Huffington also had this to say:

HUFFINGTON: However passionately you may express it, is it based on facts? That is really the key distinction that we need to make. And also, in the progress, are you disagreeing with your opponents or are you demonizing them?

KURTZ: For you it's about the tone?

HUFFINGTON: For me it's about -- first of all, it's about facts. Is it factual? That's key.

KURTZ: Right, but conservatives who disagree with you certainly think they are being factual.

HUFFINGTON: No. They can't possibly think they are being factual when they say that Barack Obama wasn't born here, or when they are saying that Barack Obama is taking us down a communist path. These clearly are not factual statements, and that is really the first distinction.

I mean, really. There are facts, and there are flaming sacks of dog poop. Most of us can tell the
difference. Why does Kurtz seem to find it so difficult?

Here’s an example:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/fox-union-stewart/comment-page-1#comment-36091

“On Fox Business’ Varney and Company, Monica Crowley did her best to discredit the,Stewart/Colbert rally by claiming that union members were being bused in at gunpoint to the rally. She said, ‘Well, but there are a lot of union members who are actually being bused in at gunpoint by their union leadership.’ When Varney countered not at gunpoint, Crowley said, ‘In some cases yes at gunpoint.’”

What do you think? Facts? Or verbal flaming dog poop? Yeah. Flaming dog poop is pretty easy to spot.

Of course, Howard Kurtz wasn’t the only “news” person who really didn’t get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/30/stewarts-rally-sanity-brings-urgency-chage/?test=latestnews

Oh, Fox. Your skewed perspective is showing.

Fortunately, people noticed.

http://rescuetruth.com/media/fox-news-paints-stewart-colbert-rally-attendees-as-insane-potheads/

(But, wouldn’t you rather hang out with stoned hippies than foaming evangelicals anyway?)

So. Did the rally accomplish anything?

Let’s ask the twenty four-hour political pundit panic conflictinator:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/30/masters-of-the-ambivalent/

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/23749

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/31/john-stewarts-rally-was-not-a-demonstration-of-moderation/

http://www.slate.com/id/2272781/

Or, read/watch this, and answer it yourself:

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/video-and-transcript-of-jon-stewart-s-closing-speech-at-rally-to-restore-sanity

My answer is an unequivical Yes.

The rally restored my faith in America as a nation of basically decent, basically intelligent, basically reasonable people. Despite what the verbal flaming dog poop flingers would suggest.

Do I think Stewart’s rally will sway the election?

No. I get it, he was preaching to the choir. People who honestly believe Obama is a secret Muslim or a Nazi Communist will not suddenly vote Democractic in 2 days. And the crazies are more excited about voting than the rational people this time arounnd.

But.

I don’t think the public is as TEA-bagger happy as the media would have us believe. And I don’t think there is going to be a “Republican revolution” come Wednesday. (But then, I didn’t believe the GOP was “finished” in 2008 either.) Yes, some very unfortunate candidates will win on Tuesday (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, perhaps Pat Toomey or Sharron Angle), but in other places, people seem to be coming to their senses.

I also keep the faith that, if the GOP manages to take control of the House - they won’t get the Senate - they will have to dial back their crazy no matter how many seats they win.

But, I’m actually not convinced Tuesday is going to be GOP-victory bloodbath that the media keeps telling me it will be. I think the Democratic base is not as suicidal as the media insists they are. I think Independents are not as distractable as the media thinks. And I feel in my heart that people are more reasonable than the media gives them credit for.

In any case, whether he meant to or not, Stewart’s rally inspired me. I’m excited to go to the polls on Tuesday. I’m fired up and ready to go. And I’ll be doing what I can in these final hours to convince my fellow voters to vote rationally. I’m betting there are some 200,000+ people like me who will do likewise.

Thank you, Jon Stewart.

Veni, Vidi, Voting.

Dan Malloy scores first in Danbury

2010-10-29T20:05:00.007-04:00

Dan Malloy jumping off of the bench of the Danbury Whalers shortly after scoring the first goal in Whalers' history.

[update] I have an interview from after the game at TK's. Let me say, in advance, that he was a bit reluctunt to give it since I am a political blogger... But as a hockey fan I promised to make it about the real story: The first goal in Danbury Whalers' franchise history, his assist, and the team with no more mention about his family than "say hi to'em". The young man is a team player. (Saw ctblogger at the game, as well, and he had his cam rolling so he may have some footage to add to the game story).

Throwing a Real Tea Party

2010-10-28T18:44:00.000-04:00

Funny or Die pretty much sums up what we are dealing with when we talk about the Tea Party:

A slightly misogynist message (Probably a bit NSFW, too) to another aspect of the Tea Party that we have to deal with below...

Passed around on Facebook...

Composer

By:Ben Schmit

Reaganing - Even Liberals will Drink to This!

2010-10-28T12:59:00.003-04:00

For a little levity during this political season, watch the 30 Rock episode titled "Reaganing." If you don't have access via on-demand, check it out:

http://www.nbc.com/30-rock/video/reaganing/1255493\

There are tons of laughs, but the jelly bean bit will make any politico crack up! Enjoy...

rope-a-what?

2010-10-19T17:49:00.004-04:00

Wow, our chattering class sure loves horse races, doesn't it?

Even when there's not a pony in sight.

Guess what? Richard Blumenthal remains ahead of Linda McMahon! By about the same, comfortable but not Delaware-style oh-my-god-we-can't-possibly-pull-the-lever-for-the-crazy-lady-wide margin as he has enjoyed since the primary.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/connecticut

Before you start telling me that McMahon "closed the gap!" with some colorful wrestling expression, stop. Of course the race tightened after the primary. Richard Blumenthal, a well-respected long-serving attorney general against an unknown representative of a demoralized party still reeling from ass-handing defeats in 2006 and 2008, is a shoe-in. Richard Blumenthal running against an actual candidate, and one who both has a functioning intellect and cash to buy lots and lots of ads and mailers, is a bit tougher.

But it's not been the on-the-ropes chair-smashing slug-fest the media would have you believe.

Look at the chart. With the exception of one blip at the very end of September, the race has been steady-Freddy for the past two months.

Some CT voters (I'll go out on a limb here and call them "Republicans") prefer McMahon over a Democratic candidate. But, more CT voters (including a majority of independents) actually prefer the candidate they know over the candidate they don't know (who, despite all the junk mail and nasty swift-boating attempt, and really, really, really lame tv ad featuring 2 "housewives" in an SUV .... really doesn't seem to articulate much of a plan beyond "spending bad. tax breaks good.") Go figure.

One reason why?

Maybe his ideas are actually better.

Check this out:

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/106874.php

shorter version:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/10/connecticut-s-corporate-tax-breaks-hinder-hiring.html

Even shorter version:

Huh. Tax breaks on the wealthy don't create jobs.

Investing in infrastructure and education do.

Who'dathunkit?

I guess you can dress up old GOP ideas in a sparkly wrestling cape, but ... no one's going to mistake them for anything but a cheap distraction.

Now, just because Nate Silver thinks McMahon has about a 0.04% chance of (insert your own wrestling analogy for "win surprisingly" here), CT voters should not get complacent.

There are some closer races that will hinge on Democratic (or at least, the "Sweet Mike, not the GOP again!") voter turnout.

This isn't the Kentucky Derby (if it were, I'd be praying to Aqua Buddha. Just to hedge bets.)

But it's not a done deal.

Vote. vote. vote. vote. vote. vote. vote. vote.

How Wrong Can One Person Be?

2010-09-30T22:26:00.006-04:00

I know it’s exciting when someone new walks in and turns everyone’s heads. They’re mysterious. That’s sexy. And, if they can put words together into complete, grammatically correct sentences, they (by today’s standards) are brilliant.

So, suddenly, the known quantity of the person we’ve been with seems suddenly unbearably dull. And all their flaws become magnified to funhouse proportions. We’re prone to find fault with old reliable. We dream of dancing with the New Kid In Town.

But sooner or later, the New Kids reveal themselves to be complete jerks. What was once cool, suddenly seems mean. We realize that New Kid hasn’t been laughing with us, New Kid has been laughing at us. Or worse, we realize that seemed “cool” is actually, kinda dumb.

It may sound like middle school, but that’s politics in America today. And Linda McMahon has been CT’s New Kid du jour. But guess what? Turns out that scrappy-business-woman-who-will-shake-things-up-in-Washington-and-go-to-the-mat-for-us-in-CT narrative isn’t really an accurate character portrayal. McMahon really, really, is far more out of touch with “real people” in CT than she claims.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/mcmahon_doesnt_rule_out_reducing_minimum_wage/#cmt

McMahon was asked if she supported increasing the minimum wage. (This wasn’t a gotcha media question out of nowhere. She’d just received the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business, who is decidedly anti-minimum-wage increases: http://www.nfib.com/issues-elections/issues-elections-item?cmsid=240). She responded:

“What I think what we have to look at whenever we’re talking about minimum wage increases is where is our economy is at this particular point, and how’s that going to impact the businesses that are going to have to pay those wages?” McMahon said.

Yes. It must be really, really terrible to be paying out minimum wage to one’s workers. Really, if we wanted to help out mom-and-pop business owners (like McMahon and her hubby, who run a mom-and-pop small business themselves, dontcha know?), we’d indenture workers to them for 7 years.

“Pressed further, McMahon admitted she did not know the current minimum wage or if anyone at World Wrestling Entertainment is earning that amount.”

Oh. That’s probably why she needs to study it more, then. For the rest of us, who already know that the minimum wage is $8.25/hr in CT (and $7.25 from the feds), and who also know that the federal minimum wage recently rose after nearly a decade of remaining stuck at $6.55/hr, do we really need the review?

Minimum wage is only the bottom rung (well, second bottom rung: don’t forget the many employees who earn less than minimum, and rely on tips to make up the difference. And Americans are lousy tippers.) of the pay-scale ladder. And it’s been clear to anyone who earns an hourly wage that our wages are not keeping up with our cost of living. By keeping the minimum wage down, wages all up the ladder stagnated. (Except at the tippy top. Where Linda McMahon sits.) Which is part of the reason we are in this nightmare recession to begin with.

McMahon, however, doesn’t earn an hourly wage. She earns $46 million a year with her little mom-and-pop business. Now, much of that money is “bred”: it’s dividends and compound interest on investments and all kinds of other low-tax, non-work-related income that one can get when one has accumulated a huge pile of cash. If McMahon’s earnings were calculated hourly, assuming 50 work weeks a year –I’m giving her 2 weeks’ vacation like the rest of working stiffs– she’d be making $23,000 an hour.

Nice work if you can get it. Which, apparently, McMahon can, but she’d rather you and I ….. can’t.

Now, McMahon, sensing she’d maybe said something a little out-of-touch, quickly back-pedaled:

“Don’t take away this morning that I’m saying that we should scrap minimum wage,” she said. “That is clearly not my position.”

So, she’s not for not increasing minimum wage? Or, she was for it, but now she’s against it? Or, she has no idea what it’s like to live on $14,500 a year ($16,500 in CT), but she does know that increasing the tax rates on people earning $250,00 + is just too much to be borne? Clearly, her position is entirely unclear. But, her sympathies do lie with the people who have to pay their workers.

Oh well, any rising star candidate can have one bad moment, right?

Except, the more I hear from McMahon (and, honestly, I get so much junk mail from her campaign, I feel like I went to high school with her), the less I understand about her positions.

Maybe you don’t know this, but immigration has become somewhat of a hot topic this election cycle (I know. Who knew?). Two important pieces of immigrant-related legislation were nearly voted on this week. (Except that the GOP voted to not vote on either one of them. Hasta la vista, baby!) Maybe you’ve heard that CT is home to a sizable population of immigrants?

Well, it’s all news to McMahon!

http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/mcmahon_hits_fair_haven/

“In an interview, she claimed ignorance of two issues of top concern for Latino advocates, especially in a city that has thousands of illegal immigrants: She said she is not familiar with the federal Dream Act, a federal bill that would have allowed “alien children” a path to citizenship. She also said she had not heard about the New Haven’s municipal ID, which made national headlines when Mayor John DeStefano created it in 2007 for all residents, regardless of immigration status.”

Awesome. It’s not like the legal status of American-born children of non-native-Americans will be of any consequence to CT, right? It’s not like issues of immigration and minimum wage are completely unrelated. Nor the idea of educating children of immigrants (legal or otherwise) won’t have an impact on our workforce, our economy, or wages!

(Hmmm, maybe McMahon should ask her kindred spirit - another mom-and-pop-small-business owner! - and fellow office-seeker, Meg Whitman, about thorny issues of immigration and wages …

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/arrest_meg_whitman_housekeeper_says_conservative_i.php?ref=fpb

…. Maybe not.)

Then there’s McMahon’s two-step cha-cha position on education:

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7758/mcmahon-campaign-shrugs-possible-tea-party-endorsement

“As a member of the state Board of Education, McMahon supported the state's application for federal Race to the Top funds, an education program that many in the Tea Party see as another federal intrusion into what should be the province of local and state government.

“But McMahon did tell [Freedomworks] she would consider voting to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, as well as the Department of Energy and, possibly, the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Or, maybe she didn’t!

“McMahon's campaign says McMahon's position to the Tea Party was that she would have to study the issue, before deciding if she could support dismantling any federal agency.

Except, there’s a Video of her remarks, taken by an audience member, is available on YouTube.

The question comes at 4:45: “Can you name the top 2 or 3 federal agencies you would dismantle?”

The answer is coy.

"I'm not sure that I know an agency should be totally dismantled and done away with until I've had an opportunity to look at it more," she said. "Some that come to mind that I think would have a first look: one would be the Department of Education."”

So, she won’t dismantle the DoE, until she’s looked at it. Then she’ll dismantle it.

I now have a headache in my right eye. This is political hair-splitting. Does McMahon ever state a clear policy position? For someone who has used her “political outsider” credentials a major line on her resume, she sure learned the argot of political double-speak pretty quick. (I should also add, she put the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency on the chopping block as well.)

Or her remarks on repealing health care reform (at about minute 2 in the same video): she thinks we need health care reform, but because there was “no bipartisanship” in the recent overhaul (which is true only in the sense that no Republicans voted for it. Because there are a lot of Republican ideas in HCR. But that’s another blog post), she wants to “repeal it” and “start over.” And probably end up with a bill that looks remarkably similar, but with less access to health care for the middle and working class. And more perks for the ultra-wealthy, like herself.

That’s what really gets me. Here is a candidate who pretends to be “for the regular people.” But she’s really in it for people like her. Top earners. (And, of course, she then smears her opponent with her own flaws.)

http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/09/watercress-or-baloney-linda-mc.html

Here’s the rundown so far (based on her campaign website):

Linda McMahon is for:

▪ tax reductions on capital gains and dividends

▪ abolition of the estate tax and the gift tax

▪ greater tax deductions to encourage savings for IRAs and higher education

▪ passage of pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea

All of which help to enrich the top earners, at the expense of bottom earners.

She’s against:

▪ the minimum wage (starve the worker, so the employer can make more)

▪ health care reform (so her “independent contractor” wrestlers have even fewer options when the steroids they’ve used to stay employed melt their internal organs.)

▪ the stimulus (we should take all that money and “pay down our national debt.” So the jobless, and the soon-to-be-homeless can feel financially responsible, I guess.)

▪ “burdensome regulations” (want some eggs?)

All of which help to level the playing field for the middle and working class. (Once again, let me refer you to Senator Al Franken’s brilliant one-act play:

http://www.skeptically.org/curpol/id24.html

Because sometimes, you need Helen Hunt and Drew Barrymore to explain regressive tax policy.)

She’s also, apparently, against the Department of Education, for reasons I can’t begin to guess.

On top of it, she doesn’t even bother to know the details of things that concern “regular people”. Like what the minimum wage actually is. Or what the DREAM act might mean to cities like New Haven. But then, we should recognize this character trait by now. Look at how hard she and her husband worked to make sure they were enriched at their wrestlers’ expense! (Insert your own links here. There are many. Just don’t go to that vapid ad with the 2 soccer moms jabbering about “soap opera.”)

Color me unimpressed with Linda McMahon. She’s wrapped up Reaganomics talking points in wrestling tights and cape, but she’s no more compassionate about the actual plight of actual constituents than any other Beltway bloodsucker. And she’s willfully ignorant on issues that do not intersect with her rarified world of the very, very rich.

While certainly more polished(and less whackadoo) then, say, Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell, under the surfaces, she’s cut from the same “Me first! Screw you!” cloth.

Cool? Nope. Smart? Not in my book. Senatorial? Let’s hope not.

UPDATE:

Here's what McMahon's opponent did today:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/10/connecticut_halts_all_foreclos.html

Which will certainly come as a relief to many CT homeowners. (I've been wondering: if McMahon is really so concerned about her potential constituents, why doesn't she dole out $25 million in mortgage relief to CT homeowners unemployed from the Great Recession? How many houses would $25m save from the bank auction? And how would keeping these people in their homes positively impact the CT economy? Linda? Call me!)

UPDATE 2:

The hits keep coming. (This is where being a shut-in on a Friday night pays off. Who else saw Rachel Maddow tonight?)

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003745379

When asked by an audience member at a TEA-bagger event, if she'd ever lobbied congress:

"McMahon then acknowledged having made campaign contributions to both parties. But “in terms of lobbying dollars in Washington, I have not spent lobbying dollars in Washington,” she said. "

Too bad she's, um, lying.

"Between 2001 and 2008, McMahon’s company paid at least $680,000 to lobby Congress and federal agencies over such issues as the defense authorization bills of 2002 and 2003, which included taxpayer-funded advertising programs during wrestling programs. McMahon’s company also sought lobbying help during a Congressional steroids investigation.

Yeah. Lying. Pants-on-fire lying.

But this is my favorite part:

"The McMahon campaign dismissed the issue as a simple matter of imprecise language and defended the lobbying payments."

I'm guessing she left herself some wiggle-room with the sentence, "I have not spent lobbying dollars in Washington." She probably wasn't "in Washington" when she made those lobbying payments. She was probably on the phone, credit card in hand, in CT. Or, she sent a flunky to DC with the check while she was on vacation. Or, maybe, she was in the District of Columbia, but not in Washington State. See? It's all a big misunderstanding!

So. Tell me again how Linda McMahon is an "outsider" offering us something "new?"

salary salads

2010-09-29T22:23:00.004-04:00

Here’s some interesting news about salaries, concessions, and taxes.

New Milford teachers and the Board of Ed have peacefully renegotiated teacher contracts for the 2011-2012 year.

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/New-Milford-teachers-agree-to-no-pay-increases-676941.php

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/New-Milford-school-board-approves-settlement-that-672086.php

It’s pretty frugal:

The contract will freeze teacher pay for the next year. $0 raises. 0% step increases. $0 in longevity pay. $0 extra dollars for extracurricular service. Whatever a teacher is making this year, they make next year (if they are still working at all).

Additionally, teachers will also pay a little more out of pocket (in the form of co-pay increases) for medical care.

(Oddly, not everyone is thrilled by this. Bill Wellman and Nancy LaTour of the BoE, wanting more concessions, voted against the contracts.)

Compare this with the last contracts, in the halcyon days of pre-crash 2008:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/New-Milford-teachers-accept-salary-insurance-229754.php

when teachers’ salaries increased, on average, 3.4%.

(And Bill Wellman thought this was “excellent.”)

Let’s say this again, slowly.

New Milford teachers have agreed to flat salaries, and increased medical costs, for the next year. Tax payers aren’t being asked for a single dime over last year.

This seems fair, given the current state of the economy. If anyone still remembers last spring, and the budget battle, many, many people criticized teachers for “squeezing” tax payers (by not granting salary concessions mid-contract).

Some people even thought the budget meetings required defibrillators:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/default/article/New-Milford-council-member-s-e-mail-stirs-school-391948.php

At the same time, the Town-side employees were repeatedly praised for nobly sacrificing raises and benefits increases out of compassion for the struggling tax payers.

(Which is a tad disingenuous. Given that the NM Police contract expired in 2008, and the new contract was finally settled in arbitration this year - which I cost tax payers how much? - the salary picture, at least for the police, seems a bit more complex than certain members of the Town Council would have us believe.)

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/New-Milford-police-contract-talks-in-negotiation-296805.php

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/local/article/Town-police-union-struggle-with-contract-329720.php

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Arbitration-ruling-on-New-Milford-police-contract-542925.php

(That’s not knocking the police. Their work is hard and dangerous. That our police force has done so for 2 years under an expired contract is shameful, but it’s not the police force I’m ashamed of.)

Well. Anyway. That was spring.

What’s happening on the Town side this fall?

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/New-Milford-Town-Council-approves-raises-658218.php

Huh. Looks like every non-union employee on the town side just got a 2% raise.

Retroactive to July 2010.

In the budget that was trumpeted as containing 0 salary increases.

Come again?

Yeah.

The Town Council, after slapping everyone involved with education silly last spring, just undercut their own argument.

Ummm … wha?

Where is money coming from?

Didn’t Roger Szendy tell us that the cupboard was bare, the well was dry, and, if money were toilet paper, there wasn’t a square to spare? (He did.)

http://www.housatonictimes.com/articles/2010/05/28/news/new_milford/doc4bffdc9a7d538284048885.txt

(Which is kind of funny, when you remember things like this):

http://www.housatonictimes.com/articles/2009/10/02/top_stories/20375189.txt

But, apparently, cupboards are not as bare as all that:

http://170.163.202.12/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=76408

“Mayor Murphy stated the money for the non union personnel wage adjustments will be coming out of the contingency line and out of the Fringe Account.”

Say What?!

The contingency line and the Fringe Account?

Pardon me, but:

Didn’t the Board of Ed get raked over the coals by Paul Szymanski for transferring money form different columns of the school budget? (Oh, yes, he did. He had a facebook page and a website and huge, honking billboards telling everyone with eyeballs just how awful, dirty, shameful, carnie-huckster that kind of transfer is!)

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/New-Milford-2010-11-town-and-school-budget-490234.php

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/default/article/Calls-Board-of-Education-to-task-for-lack-of-594466.php

So, why is it ok for the town to make these kinds of transfers? What’s the difference? It was the Mayor’s idea, so it’s ok?

Is a salary increase truly a “contingency” expense? (It’s not in my household.) What happens next year, when it’s budget time again, and the revenue side has not improved (as Roger Szendy keeps telling us. His message is “Be afraid. Be very afraid” about future budgets.)? Will the Town Council raid the contingency line again to keep those salaries where they are? Or will they yank that 2% (or more) back from the non-union employees?

I don’t deny that town employees deserve the increase. I don’t deny the good work done by town employees. So don’t start. That’s not the point.

The point is, there seems to be one set of standards the BoE is expected to follow, or beware the wrath of billboards. And there is another set of standards the TC is allowed to follow. Especially between budget seasons.

Because there’s no way the average tax payer is keeping their eye on this ball. I’m sure next budget season, we’ll hear the same garbage from the same cranks about how teachers are greedy, the BoE is can’t handle money, and no one will note that teachers and the BoE held the line on salaries, while the Mayor and TC basically used the vacation credit card to pay the mortgage.

It’s all perfectly legal.

But it sure ain’t fair. Not to the taxpayers, who were sold a story about financially responsible town officials and greedy educators. Not to the BoE members, who were vilified for “underhanded” processes that are, apparently, totally cool for the TC. And not to the school and town employees, who are clearly being treated as “good kid/bad kid” in a tragically dysfunctional family.

Restoring America’s Awesomeness (Through Truthiness)

2010-09-20T21:58:00.003-04:00

Say what you will about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but they are perhaps the smartest journalists working in comedy, or the most soulful comedians working in journalism. Yes, they are wickedly funny. Yes, they make sometimes jokes best appreciated by a fourteen year-old boy. But Jesus H. Christ, some days they are all that keeps me from sticking my head in the oven.

There are many, many reasons to sport a Stewart/Colbert 2012 bumper sticker. My favorite moments include:

Jon Stewart channeling America’s fear, pain, and still reminding us of our unquashable optimism on September 20, 2001.

http://faisal.com/a/2010/09/20/1-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-9202001

Stephen Colbert speaking truth to power, the president, and the White House press corps.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879#

Jon Stewart calling out Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on the ill-fated “Crossroads.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stephen Colbert taking Debra Dickerson - and all others who thought candidate Obama might not be black enough (wow. who knew we’d long for those days?) –down a peg.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/81955/february-08-2007/debra-dickerson

Jon Stewart single-handedly ending Betsy McCaughey’s career as a “death panel” fear-monger.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/video-jon-stewart-slams-betsy-mccaughey-on-alleged-death-panels-from-page-425-hr-3200

Stephen Colbert, in a desert cammo suit and tie, shaving his head in solidarity with our troops in Iraq.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229768/june-08-2009/obama-orders-stephen-s-haircut---ray-odierno

I could go on and on and on. But.

I now have an all-time Stewart/Colbert moment.

Last week, after much hype, and a plucky fan-boy facebook page, the satiric geniuses announced plans to host ….. a march on Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/17/stewart-colbert-rally-to-restore-sanity_n_720588.html

How flippin’ awesome is that?!?!?!?! (Immeasurably awesome. That’s how.)

Why? Let me count the ways:

They will attract a sizeable crowd. And the crowd will be energetic, replete with sardonic signs, and possibly drunk. They will also be more racially diverse, and younger, than any TEA Party crowd. Will they be bigger than the 9/12 rally, or Glenn Beck’s self-love fest to “Restore America’s Honor”? Well, no one will know for sure. Partially because there is no official crowd estimate of those rallies, and because Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann can’t count to twenty-one while clothed. (“Don’t tell me there were less than a million people here!” “No, 3 million!” No, dear. Eleventy brazillion people. At least. Or ….. maybe just 80 to 90 thousand. But who’s counting?) So Stewbert can make up any number they want. (I vote for eleventy brazillion and one).
As satire, Stewbert will get to play their comedy central personas to the hilt. Stewart will, I’m sure, bring his chalkboard and suede elbow-patched blazer for a hilarious parody of Glenn Beck. Colbert will undoubtedly out-Fox the Fox network in truthy lies told with phony emotion. In any case, any Fox-funded political rally to follow this one, will be anti-climactic, at best. There is no power like that of the gifted satirist, and Stewbert are (is?) perhaps the best of a generation. Once you’ve been pantsed by the jester laureates, you’ve jumped the shark.
Even though Stewbert will swear this in a non-political event (I don’t expect guest appearances from actual politicians or pundits), but rather a parody of a non-political political event, this will have a “get out the vote” effect. The rally is happening 3 days before the midterms. It just might wake up the disengaged voters on the left. If this event can show America that the Emperor Has No Clothes (er, the TEA Party has no solutions), sanity might just be restored before the GOP fringe takes over congress.

Lest you think I’m a deranged fan who really, really needs to get out of their parents’ basement and kiss a girl, I’m not alone in my admiration:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42447.html

Clearly, the boys from Comedy Central are a sleeper cell, at least in the minds of the truly crazy:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/beck-colbert-stewart

Let’s hope, Glenn!

Stewart and Colbert really, really don’t care how anyone votes on November 2. They just want you to think about who you’re voting for and why. Stewbert aren’t partisan hacks. (THe left, from Bill Clinton to Barak Obama, have been on the receiving end of the jester scepter). They don’t blindly worship Democrats, nor blindly condemn Republicans. They ruthlessly mock stupidity and hypocrisy. Sadly, there’s plenty of that to go round on both sides of the aisle.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are satirists of the highest order, as soulful as they are smart; and for much of the last decade, they have been the keepers of America’s sanity. Whether the Rally to Restore Sanity/Keep Fear Alive attracts 50,000 or 500,000 attendees, whether it changes the midterm election results, or simply hastens sunset the misguided TEA Bagger experiment, it will have a positive impact on political discourse in this country. And for that, they deserve a medal.

Warren FTW

2010-09-15T23:12:00.005-04:00

I have been geeking out over yesterday’s big primaries, and the ensuing act of Republican cannibalism that really, really belongs in one of Linda McMahon’s WWE Smackdowns. (I mean seriously: who doesn’t want to see Sarah Palin kick Karl Rove in the crotch, followed up by Rush Limbaugh taking a bite out of Rove’s ear? Meanwhile, Christine Crazy-pants O’Donnell enters wearing nothing by a floor-length cape made of tea-bags, shrieking, “Stop masturbating and put on your man-pants!”) I’ll go pop more popcorn.

But then I heard even more exciting news: President Obama has tapped Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And he did it with all the panache of Wesley as the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16consumer.html?src=busln

http://www.veoh.com/collection/s274425/watch/e107370y6p2Dpwx

Can you see the connection? No? Let me explain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up.

Here’s the deal: everyone sane and to the left of Richard Nixon wanted the brilliant, the steely-spined, the unflappable, and unimpeachable Elizabeth Warren, in this job. (Except Chris Dodd. WTF, Dodd?) Obama wanted Warren in this job. But …. The 40 Republicans (plus Dodd) in the Senate - and their evil, economy-torpedoing, bank-executive soul keepers - did not want Warren in this job. So, Obama had a few crappy choices:

Nominate Elizabeth Warren, and watch an ugly, protracted confirmation hearing process, which could very well end in her not getting confirmed. (And, as the lovely and talented Rachel Maddow just pointed out, Warren would have to provide vapid non-answers to her congressional questioners, which would make her appear to be other than the ass-kicking, name-taking, populist paladin that she is.) Even if the GOP weren’t beholden to their bank-exec orc overlords, they couldn’t be seen to compromise with Obama this close to an election. Because they must appease the tea-bagger fringe. Who don’t like getting ripped off, or big government, and really, really don’t like a government agency that would prevent them form getting ripped off. Oh, Tea-baggers. You are a riddle wrapped in crazy, drowned in a teabag.)
Not nominate Elizabeth Warren, and have his entire base (you know, the Progressives, who got him this President gig) break up with him and write mean facebook posts about him for the next two years.
Name Warren in a recess appointment, like this summer, when no one sane is paying attention, but everyone crazy seizes on the tiniest morsel of news and twists it out of shape. (Cue the Elizabeth Warren Hitler posters). And give the GOP another thing to complain about: “Obama’s doing things behind our back! And it’s probably socialist! And fascist! And French and gay!”

But, no. Obama chose the jedi ju-jiitsu move instead: wait until congress is back in session. Wait until the last big primary day passes, when a few GOP-establishment candidates are ousted by wild-eyed fringe candidates (have you met Mr. Paladino?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016461-503544.html), and the entire news cycle realizes that the GOP might be in disarray (ya think?!). Then.

Name Warren to a temporary “Assistant to the President” post, where her duties will include creating and running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“But, that’s not the same as a real appointment! That’s just a symbolic gesture!” Oh, no, my dears.

Here’s the beauty of it:

The “Special Assistant” position is no Miss Congeniality prize. You know who else is a “Special Assistant” in the White House? (Hint: it’s not Bo.) Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Warren answers directly to the President and to the Treasury Secretary. And everyone else answers to her.
She can start immediately, without waiting for Congress make an ass of themselves. I’m going to assume, since the whole agency was her idea, and she’s been talking about it since the financial debacle of 2008, she’s got a rough outline of what she wants to do with her time. Which means she can start doing things between now and the election.
This will make the left base very, very, happy. Which might make them less inclined to stay home on the first Tuesday in November.
Oh. We might get some meaningful banking regulation in our lifetime.
Obama can (and likely will) make her appointment the old-fashioned way, with the ridiculous confirmation hearings, at a later time of his choosing. Like, after the midterms. And after she’s kicked some ass. Which should make her confirmation hearings go more smoothly (and make them more fun to watch.)

But wait, there’s more!

It seems that this bit of Venusian Akido (hmmm. Is that spelled right? My spell-check is about to implode.) isn’t the only bone President Obama is throwing to his base (you know, the sane people in the country).

No! Look at what Obama has been saying about the Bush-era tax-breaks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/obama-promotes-job-creati_n_706652.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/15/obama.economic.relief/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39203810/ns/politics-decision_2010

Look what’s been happening with immigration reform!

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/Obama-slams-Republican-blockade-on-immigration/articleshow/6563535.cms

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/gutierrez_meeting_with_obama_t.html

http://www.poder360.com/dailynews_detail.php?blurbid=9044

People! This is three-dimensional chess! A three-dimensional chess hat trick! At the galactic championship of three-dimensional chess! (Look, I watched a lot of movies and sci-fi this summer. Sue me.)

Finally, President Obama is doing something! I mean, besides the landmark health care reform, the watershed banking reform, the fair-pay acts, the pants-ing of BP for peeing in our Gulf, and the nomination of 2 terrific Supreme Court Justices. And, oh yeah, lowering your federal taxes last year, plus winding a senseless 8-year war in Iraq, and pulling the economy back from the abyss, preventing a second Great Depression. All of this with an obstructionist opposition so hell-bent on doing nothing helpful whatsoever, they voted against bills they themselves had written.

Somewhere over the summer, President Obama found his progressive self, gave him some Red Bull, and sent him out to fight. He put Mr. Bipartisan Compromise in deep storage. And he’s insisting that the Democratic congresspersons (as a certain tea-party candidate would say) “put on their man pants” with him and pass some serious legislation before the midterms. (For other awesome things this certain tea-partier has said, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/christine-odonnell-craziest-quotes_n_718328.html)

There's even some movement on (ok, ok, I admit, Obama is still dragging his feet on this one, but the Democratic congress seems to be finding its spine) finally repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell!

http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news/national-news/2102-big-victory-judge-strikes-down-dadt.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/10/advocates-of-dadt-say-ruling-should-spur-senate-to-act.html

The next few weeks should be telling. Watch how the Republicans, who currently gave their man-pants to a bunch of fruit loops wearing powdered wigs and knee-breeches, react to these issues. And ask yourself: should we cede more ground to these jack-holes?

Democratic base (and sane independents): consider this your wake-up call. Elizabeth Warren isn’t a bone thrown to the liberal fringe. She’s a warning shot across the Tea-Bagger’s and GOP’s bow.

The polling booths await.

Fire up. Get ready to go.

Choosing a New Police Chief: No Local Ties, Please.

2010-08-27T12:15:00.002-04:00

Do you want your town to look like The Dukes of Hazzard? Then again, maybe New Milford has been run by Boss Hogg and Roscoe P. Coltrane for a while. If that's not your idea of how a quaint New England town should be run, then help make sure the next police chief has no local ties - political or familial.

The next police chief should be the most qualified candidate, period. Local knowledge and local ties should factor zero into this hiring decision. Promoting from within the department is fine, but with 57 people applying for the job, I'd bet some highly qualified out-of-town candidates were on that list.

The recent rash of retirements have significantly affected the leadership of the New Milford Police Department. Seven (7) officers left the force, including the chief and three in the administrative ranks. Without going into the details as to "why" (i.e. retirement benefits will be reduced with the new union contract), the retirements now bring the politicos into the arena of police power. And that's where the trouble can begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRX4mlFi06A

According to the Town Charter, the Mayor appoints (with TC approval) a chief for a term "not to exceed four years." They can then reappoint the chief for successive terms. Then it's the Chief that can pick the rest of his leadership team.

Some politicos in town are already whispering about those losing connections to the top brass of the NMPD. Here's why Roscoe and Boss Hogg comparisons have started popping up:

A key member of the retiring top brass has a "long term relationship" with a family member of a leading local businessman/politico
This local businessman/politico is often seen with "R" town council members
One of these "R" town council members is the only TC member to ask for a committee to search for the next police chief. Even though the Mayor had already started a search process (using an outside consultant), this TC member remained obstinate about wanting a committee

Why would this TC member be so insistent about a committee - unless he and his politico pal didn't want an outside consultant to bring in an outsider? Is all of this a coincidence? I'll let you decide - place a comment below.

Can you guess who the TC member is? Put your guess in a comment (if you do your homework, you can find the answer in less time than it takes a politico to drive home from Milano's).

With all of the current co-mingling of business, political, and personal lives, it's almost like The Dukes of Hazzard. In fact, there is a replica of the General Lee in New Milford - it even has the confederate flag painted on the roof. But I've never seen Bo or Luke Duke behind the wheel. Break out the moonshine, boys!

To ensure "NM politics as usual" don't become part of the future police department leadership, tell the Mayor and TC members that the new chief should not be connected to anyone in New Milford. Not connected to a politico, a builder, a blogger, Grandma or Uncle Jesse. If a candidate is chosen who has local ties, ask the tough question: WHY is this the BEST person for the job? If the politicos can't tell you, then you know they've picked Roscoe P. Coltrane.

If you don't think hiring a new chief is significant, then you've never been pulled over for a traffic ticket, arrested, or helped from a dangerous situation by a police officer. In other words, the powers of the police are very significant. These powers shouldn't be granted to a friend or relative of the local cabal.

Party like it's Orwell's 1984

2010-08-25T22:02:00.004-04:00

This summer, I read George Orwell’s paranoid dystopia novel, 1984. I have no idea how I managed to graduate from high school, let along college, without reading it, but, there you go. (And, all literary genius aside, I’m so glad I wasn’t friends with Orwell. Somehow I doubt he was ever the life of a party.)

Now that I’m done with it, I can safely say that I will never read it again. Not because it’s a bad book (it’s brilliant), or because Orwell’s prophetic powers were off (in so many ways he’s so dead-on-balls-accurate it’s frightening). No. I will not reread it, because I can go anywhere there’s a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag flying, and relive it, kind of like a Renaissance Faire or a Civil War Reenactment. Between the idea of perpetual war and the permanent underclass, the celebration of enforced ignorance, the rewriting of history, and “Newspeak” (Orwell was channeling Sarah Palin’s Twitter account, wasn’t he?!), I am certain most of the novel is actually set in a TEA Party rally.

Want an example of Orwell’s Oceania in “real” life? Look no further than this discussion between CT 5^th district Congressional candidates, Chris Murphy (D) and Sam Caligiuri (R).

http://www.housatonictimes.com/articles/2010/08/20/news/political/doc4c6dbc03cf24d674185404.txt

Let’s remember a few things: we’re in a recession. The worst one since the Great Depression. We all, no matter our political leanings, want to end the recession as soon as possible. And, while progressives and Democrats have suggested investing in economic stimulus projects to create jobs, services and infrastructure (like Grove St and Boardman Rd), Republicans have been screaming since, oh, November 6^th 2008, that we Must! Lower! The! Deficit!

Thankfully, our 43^rd president showed us the way to do just that. The huge tax breaks to the biggest earners are set to expire. This will return tax levels to Clinton administration levels. (Remember the great recession of the Clinton administration? Neither do I). And yet, suddenly, this is a bad idea. It’s a startling idea. It’s also, apparently, a plot cooked up by Obama.

So. Chris Murphy calmly explains how these expiring tax cuts will be good for everyone, and Sam Caligiuri repeats the same double-think talking points that every Republican across the country has repeated since Obama won the presidency.

Murphy: “If you are serious about deficit reduction, then I can’t see how you can support adding $700 billion over the next 10 years to the federal budget deficit by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when a millionaire is getting an extra $100,000 in tax reductions and a middle-class person in Waterbury is getting $20 a year.” (Duh.)

Caligiuri: “Small business owners I talk to in the district have said that they are concerned that those tax cuts might be there in January, and it can have an effect in them hiring again.”

According to Caligiuri, “If you tax the upper class more, then you’re going to have fewer jobs and less revenue.”

Because, in his world, you must be of the “upper class” to own a small business. And a marginal increase in the tax rate causes otherwise prosperous businesses to go belly up. (I’m guessing he also will tell us that a million bucks just isn’t worth what it used to be too.)

Murphy, dwelling in reality, reminds us, “People expand their businesses because they have more customers.” If you sell widgets, and people start buying your widgets faster than you can make them, you hire someone to help you make widgets. You may even bump up the price of your widgets. Regardless if your personal income tax rate is 28% or 31%. Because, dude, you’re selling more widgets! (And if that’s not how you do business, UR doin it wrong!)

It’s like watching a college senior debate Scooby Doo. Except not as funny.

Caligiuri is selling that old song, that asking top earners to bear a greater portion of the tax base than their mini – er, employees, is “wealth redistribution.” Which is communist, or at least French and gay, and could lead to dancing. Or a terrorist attack (I get lost after the “redistribution of wealth” part). Of course, this is pure bunk. The thing is, the Bush tax cuts of the last decade were a “redistribution of wealth” back into the hands of the very, very, rich, at the expense of the other 98% of earners.

But, don’t take my word for it.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/jonah-goldberg-anti-maldistributionist.html

There’s some nifty charts, some fancy economist words, and a well-supported argument that we are not in danger of sending our million- and billionaires to Siberia while we dirty proles dine on their Bichon Frises off their gold plates. Basically, we as a nation do not over tax our population, we do not play Robin Hood with the tax revenue, and we are not in danger of becoming French and gay.

Here’s a more plain-spoken explanation of the blatant hypocrisy of the “tax cuts save jobs” double-think:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38720553

“Those who want to extend the Bush tax cuts make the following argument, among others. This is not their only argument: 1) The rich include many small business owners. 2) Small businesses are the primary engine of job growth. 3) If we raise taxes on the rich, they will not hire people or will hire fewer people than they would have under the lower tax rates. 4) Therefore, raising taxes on the rich will hinder job growth.”

But … we’ve been doing tax cuts for much of the last decade. How did they work out for jobs, growth, and small businesses?

They sucked at it. Why? Because:

“If there is no increase in business, no profitable reason to add to the payroll, no small business is going to hire people no matter what their tax rate is.”

Now, why did Bush enact those tax cuts in the first place? Because, in his world, Bill Clinton (remember when Bill Clinton was a socialist? Neither do I.) had imposed an unfair tax burden on the rich (those poor business owners, again). So, maybe if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t been enacted, the uber wealthy would have done even worse?

I dunno. I look at these numbers, from the oppressive Clinton tax era, and it doesn’t look like many of the “upper class” went hungry:

“In 1990, the marginal rate was raised from 28 percent to 31 percent and the higher rate bracket was changed to include income over $82,150 (previously it was $162,770). That year job growth slowed dramatically from about 2 million in 1989 to 321,000 in 1990. In 1991 there was a net loss of 857,000 jobs.”

This was under Bush Senior. (Remember his “No New Taxes” pledge? Yeah. Me too. But, hey, the guy was trying to pay for a war in a tiny, far away, oil-rich country. Because he apparently forgot that wars pay for themselves.) Here’s what happened under Bill Clinton:

“In 1993, two new high income brackets were created: For income over $140,000 the rate went from 31 percent to 36 percent; for income over $250,000 the rate went from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. In 1993, 2,791,000 new jobs were created on a base of 109,415,000. In 1994, 3,851,000 new jobs were created.”

I know, I know, I mentioned the C-word! And even though he shepherded America through a fantastic economic boom (and recovery from the Bush-41-era Recession), created millions of jobs, balanced the budget, and left us with a huge surplus, by taxing the super-rich at slightly higher rates than his predecessor, America did not crumble, nor did super-rich people find themselves homeless, penniless, or too scared to hire people and make more money.

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

“ Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down.

“This is another of conservatives’ hidden agendas: they keep promising workers that if we cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy grows, their wages will go up. But when wages even start to go up—for whatever reason—conservatives do everything they can to slow down the economy.”

How’s that for double-think?

Of course, in true Orwellian fashion, many citizens on the Right have decided that the Bush-41-Recession was really Clinton’s recession, and the Clinton-era good times was Bush 43’s boom. Sigh. Or, if they can remember the reality everyone else experienced, they assume the Clinton boom was an aberration.

Too bad history doesn’t support that idea:

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/content-pages/why-tax-the-rich?-efficiency,-equity,-and-progressive-taxation/

“In Greek mythology, Atlas was a giant who carried the world on his shoulders. In Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Atlas represents the "prime movers"--the talented few who bear the weight of the world's economy. In the novel, the prime movers go on strike against the oppressive burden of excessive regulation and taxation, leaving the world in disarray and demonstrating how indispensable they are to the rest of us (the "second handers").

“Rand wrote in a world in which the top marginal federal income tax rate in the United States was 91% (beginning at taxable income of $400,000). This is an unimaginably high rate by today's standards, when the dominant view in Washington is that a marginal rate of 39.6% (the top rate from 1993 to 2001) is too high. The key turning point in the process of abandoning high marginal tax rates occurred in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70%; when he left office in 1989, the top rate was 28%.

“The reduction of marginal tax rates in the Reagan years was driven by a new policy consensus that still persists today. That consensus is that high marginal tax rates on the rich come with an unaffordably high price for the U.S. economy in the form of reduced incentives for the rich to work and to save, and increased incentives to engage in socially wasteful tax planning. And yet 1957, when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged and the top income tax rate was 91%, falls in the middle of the period from 1951 through 1963. Those were the golden years of the U.S. economy, in which the average annual rate of productivity growth was 3.1% (compared with about 1.5% after 1981). Of course, the growth might have been even faster had the marginal tax rates been lower, but the coincidence of high rates and high productivity raises challenging questions for those who believe that high marginal tax rates carry an unacceptable cost.”

Not that I want to eat the rich. I don’t want to punish them (well, except for the knuckleheads who melted down the economy, then walked away with millions while regular people watched their homes fall into foreclosure. Those guys … I want to punish. With plagues of boils or some other Biblically poetic means. But, failing plagues of boils …) I understand that returning to Eisenhower-style tax brackets is probably inefficient. There is only so far the super-rich can be taxed.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/how-much-revenue-would-millionaires-tax.html

It’s just, right now, the super-rich aren’t being taxed at a reasonable rate. There is a “vast redistribution of wealth” happening in this country. Wealth Trickles out of the pockets of the average tax-payer, up to the super-rich, where it apparently dissipates into off-shore accounts or gets spent on diamond-studded doggie collars.

This is probably best explained in a play:

http://www.skeptically.org/curpol/id24.html

Thank goodness we don’t live in George Orwell’s Oceania. This play was written nearly a decade ago. If this were 1984, Winston would long ago have slid this gem into a memory hole, or else rewritten it entirely.

I’d love to sit Sam Caligiuri down to a performance of Bush Tax Cut, and then ask him to repeat his talking points. I’d like to see how deep his double-think programming goes.

Actually, I’d prefer it if the voting public viewed it. Over Halloween Weekend.

Landmark Ruling Last Week that YOU may not have heard about and then some...

2010-08-18T16:47:00.002-04:00

Zach Carter takes note of recent ruling in a case that shows pretty clearly how the banks, not just Wells Fargo BUT all banks, purposely rigged their overdraft system against you:

Wells Fargo Overdraft Scam Makes Elizabeth Warren More Important Than Ever
A landmark court ruling on Wells Fargo's outrageous overdraft scam has the potential to return hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen funds to consumers all over the country. But like many of the banking scandals from the past decade, there's more to the story than simple bank predation. When banks devised this new program to swindle their own customers, bank regulators did not merely look the other way, they actively encouraged the behavior by writing a new rule approving a practice that courts now believe to be unfair and deceptive. The Wells Fargo case should be viewed as a clear example of why Elizabeth Warren ought to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The overdraft scam that Judge William Alsup slapped down yesterday is not unique to Wells Fargo-- every big bank in the country has been doing it for years, and if it's never happened to you, it's probably happened to your friends or family. Banks make a lot of money from overdraft fees-- $38 billion last year, compared to a combined industry profit of just $12.5 billion. They don't make that money by accident. Internal company emails and memos from the Wells Fargo case show bankers spending a lot of time figuring out how to maximize the number of overdraft charges they can hit their checking customers with.

One way is by changing the order in which your transactions are processed. Most people think that their checks and debit card purchases are processed in the order that they make them. But that's not how banks actually do it. Instead, they wait for you to make several purchases, and then process the most expensive purchases first. This method pushes a customer's balance to zero faster than the honest way that actually reflects buying habits. And the sooner your balance goes to zero, the more overdraft fees the bank can hit you with.

It is institutional fraud, across the board and directed at the average consumer, that had elevated the issue of the new consumer protection agency to a grassroots level to begin with.

And it is not just the bank customers that are institutionally screwed over by the financial system. Again from Mr. Carter, even the small players on Wall Street are habitutally hammered to the benefit of the American elite that continues to escape punishment for their crimes:

Will Anyone Be Punished For Citibank's $40 Billion Subprime Lie?
Finally, some good news on Wall Street accountability. A federal judge is holding up the SEC's effort to let Citigroup's top executives off the hook for misleading their own shareholders about $40 billion in subprime debt.

If Citi executives did what the SEC says they did, then the company's top managers are guilty of both civil and criminal fraud. But regulator isn't even going after some of the executives, while letting others off with a penalty that amounts to a rounding error on their bonuses. The proposed settlement is a stunning and shameful declaration of deference to the nation's top financiers, a literal get-out-of-jail free card for bankers who not only wrecked the economy, but—according to SEC allegations—broke the law to do it.

Cindy Sheehan wrote a particualrly prescient piece recently that drives home the truth as it has always been known to too many of us:

Racketeers for Capitalism
by Cindy Sheehan

"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."
Major General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket (1935)

...snip...

As little as we hear about U.S. troops, as is our custom here in the Empire, the tragic slaughter of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn't even deserve a blip on our radar screens. I watched three hours of MSDNC (MSNBC) tonight and the manipulative gyrations to find out how many ways that they could talk about the "distraction" of the "mosque" at ground zero without talking about the one-million plus Arabs (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc) that the psychopathic U.S. response to September 11, 2001 has killed, was pathetic and frustrating to watch.

There has been a bumper sticker saying for years that goes: "What if they gave a war and no one showed up?"

Well, "they," the ones that give the wars are not going to stop. "They" have too much at stake to give up the cash cow of wars for Imperial Profit, Power, and Expansion. "They" use the toady media to whip up nationalistic and patriotic fervor to get our kids to be thrown together with the victims in a meat grinder of destruction and we just sit here and allow them to do it.

The Empire preys on our kids using all the tools at its disposal: Economic panic, high college tuition, high unemployment and a mythology that the U.S. has some existential right to steal the resources of other nations.

I, and too many others, have noted many times that we appear to be a Plutocracy that has already fallen into a kleptocracy (witness the generational theft that is the bailouts). This is taken from a post on the bailouts and how they were not helping the average Americans (nor democracy) at all:

Everything you need to know about the bailouts
in 2 short paragraphs. A relatively long post for Atrios. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!
What's The Goal?

Others have made this point in various ways, but if the goal is to bail out the banksters and keep the existing too big to fail financial order in place with the same cast of characters in charge, then all of this sounds like a cunning plan.

If the goal was really to get banks lending again they'd be funneling large sums of money to healthy (mostly smaller) financial institutions who actually made sensible choices over the last few years.
Meanwhile a fire sale is going on:
Lenders have become so overwhelmed by the foreclosure crisis that they are starting to unload properties in bulk to investor groups at steep discounts.
Investors then flip the properties for a profit without necessarily improving the home.

For example, a unit of Citigroup, the troubled financial giant, sold a foreclosure in Temecula to an Arizona investment firm for $139,000 when comparable homes in the area were selling for $240,000 to $260,000.

The firm listed the home for $249,000, received multiple offers and the property has entered escrow, said Amber Schlieder, the real estate agent who handled the listing.
Citi left a 100 grand on the table. This looks like a great way to abuse the taxpayer even more.
I want to know who they are all selling in bulk to.

Remember who else was buying up the mortgages in bulk?
So it may come as a surprise that a dozen former top Countrywide executives now stand to make millions from the home mortgage mess.

Stanford L. Kurland, Countrywide's former president, and his team have been buying up delinquent home mortgages that the government took over from other failed banks, sometimes for pennies on the dollar. They get a piece of what they can collect.

"It has been very successful - very strong," John Lawrence, the company's head of loan servicing, told Mr. Kurland one recent morning in a glass-walled boardroom here at PennyMac's spacious headquarters, opened last year in the same Los Angeles suburb where Countrywide once flourished.
The Treasury has shown a willingness to recklessly toss all of our futures away to keep these "Too Big Failures" operating in their self-entitled comfort zone.

It is worth revisiting that piece both for the post and the comments that followed here and at other Blogs, as well as other reactions to the discussed news articles of the day across the Blogosphere:

We had this discussion over at MLN (greenpeas brought it to our attention in comments).
Plutocracy is a better description of our situation, IMHO. A Plutocracy that has collapsed into a Kleptocracy, given the Robber Baron Banks... The oligarchy is just a part of our plutocracy:
In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.

The word plutocracy is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.

The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian merchant republics of Venice and Florence, and Genoa.
Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."

snip

A Plutocracy is a government controlled by a minuscule proportion of extremely wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class.

Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these 'plutocrats' controlled the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, the armed forces, and most of the natural resources. To a certain degree, there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals may exert such strong influence on governments, that the effect can arguably be compared to a plutocracy.

If there are no forms of control within the society, the plutocracy can easily collapse into a kleptocracy, "reign of thieves", where the powerholders attempt to confiscate as much public funds as possible as their private property. A kleptocratic state is usually thoroughly corrupt, has very little production and its economy is unstable. Many failed states represent kleptocracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
But I do understand that either oligarchy and plutocracy might be used almost interchangeably in these times.
Oligarchy is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers or occult spiritual hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" and "rule".

Early societies may have become oligarchies as an outgrowth of an alliance between rival tribal chieftains or as the result of a caste system. Oligarchies can often become instruments of transformation, by insisting that monarchs or dictators share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society (while oligarchy means "the rule of the few," monarchy means "the rule of the one"). One example of power-sharing from one person to a larger group of persons occurred when English nobles banded together in 1215 to force a reluctant King John of England to sign the Magna Carta, a tacit recognition both of King John's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy (the nobility). As English society continued to grow and develop, Magna Carta was repeatedly revised (1216, 1217, and 1225), guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for English constitutional monarchy. Oligarchy is also compared with Aristocracy and Communism. In an aristocracy, a small group of wealthy or socially prominent citizens control the government. Members of this high social class claim to be, or are considered by others to be, superior to the other people because of family ties, social rank, wealth, or religious affiliation. The word "aristocracy" comes from the Greek term meaning rule by the best. Many aristocrats have inherited titles of nobility such as duke or baron.
snip

Capitalism as a social system is sometimes described as an oligarchy. Socialists argue that in a capitalist society, power - economic, cultural and political - rests in the hands of the capitalist class. Communist states have also been seen as oligarchies, being ruled by a class with special privileges, the nomenklatura.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
greenpeas: "In terms of how he thinks the situation should be handled, he is in favor of breaking the banks up into much smaller entities and letting them prey upon themselves essentially. Sound diabolical enough for ya? (grin)"

As for this part? It will have to be done in some way. I think they should be nationalized, clean sweep of the gambling junkies, broken up into "small enough to fail" banks, and then they could be returned to a well regulated market. Originally I had said "let them fail", but the problem with that that took me a while to realize was that if they were just "left to fail" you could add trillions more of losses to the credit derivatives gambling tables making this even worse.
And you can add this to the list of things to do: prosecution and litigation for any criminal and criminally negligent activities.

My beef above with oligarchy is more a matter of a technicality in the actual definition of our society. We have so much more than just a ruling elite. Our politicians profit from their legislation in favor of the oligarchy, etc., corporations, companies and the upper middle class (the lower uber rich?) that have the money to invest - and aren't really part of the true oligarchy - also profit from these manipulations. The rest of "us" pay the price for this selling out. I am sure most of you can recognize the difference and similarities in the two definitions and decide for yourselves.

It sure is somewhat gobsmacking to see and hear an insider talk like this. As greenpeas put it: "This is somebody with what I would consider very insider, accepted connections - Sloan School of Management, Peterson Institute - saying the situation sucks big time."
Thanks for writing this up... I can check one thing off of my own "too-much-to-do list" now. lol

At the time that we, here at ePluribus Media, and MLN and too many others places were having these dicussions, buddydarhma wrote what I thought was an outstanding post on this at dKos

Some extra food for thought:
Hard Not To Call It Evil

According to people who should know, The Ruling Class is using our money....draining our money, the money we use to survive and feed our children and to actual produce things, to rescue the very structure...that allows them to BE The Ruling Class. The structures that enable them to Rule us by controlling credit, capital, and our pensions and IRA's and 401k's.

And our regulatory agencies and politicians. And so by extension our military. Which is then used in the service and interests of The Ruling Class and their Party of Business, the GOP.

These people, the Ruling Class, are the ones who got us into this financial armageddon. These are the same Ruling Class that took us to war in Iraq, after ignoring the warnings that an attack was coming.

They are the same people who made America into a nation that tortures people they KNOW to be innocent. They are the same people...if they even deserve the name...who are stopping any serious efforts to mitigate a Climate Crisis of incomprehensible scope.

They are the same people that so unprecedentedly had the Supreme Court decide Bush vs. Gore, so they could have Bush cut their taxes and deregulate the very same structures that we are now being called to give OUR money to prop up. Yes, the very same people who are directly responsible for everything that has gone wrong in our world, are the people who are now telling us....not asking us....telling us, that we have to bail them out. While as always, not telling us the whole story, not telling us what they are doing behind the scenes and behind our backs.
Read on...

The fact is that the entire political system is so rigged against the average American that not only have the elite successfully robbed us to bail themselves out... They have managed to pass through this entire mess they created without even barely a scratch. IOW:

We have gone from a failing Plutocracy to Kleptocracy and ridden right back into a new age of Plutocracy that has, IMHO, actually gained a stronger grip on Americans and our politics:

From Digby, and I hope she forgives me for stealing the entire thing because it is noteworthy:

Plutonomy Revival
We've been hearing a lot lately about how we have to coddle the wealthy or they'll hold their breath until they turn blue and then we'll be in real trouble. It seems ridiculous that anyone would listen to this, but it's worth revisiting this Wall Street Journal piece from 2007 to get an idea of where this is coming from:
It’s well known that the rich have an outsized influence on the economy.

The nation’s top 1% of households own more than half the nation’s stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. They also control more than $16 trillion in wealth — more than the bottom 90%.

Yet a new body of research from Citigroup suggests that the rich have other, more-surprising impacts on the economy.

Ajay Kapur, global strategist at Citigroup, and his research team came up with the term “Plutonomy” in 2005 to describe a country that is defined by massive income and wealth inequality. According to their definition, the U.S. is a Plutonomy, along with the U.K., Canada and Australia.

In a series of research notes over the past year, Kapur and his team explained that Plutonomies have three basic characteristics.

1. They are all created by “disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist friendly cooperative governments, immigrants…the rule of law and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.”

2. There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending.

3. Plutonomies are likely to grow in the future, fed by capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity and globalization.

Kapur says that once we understand the Plutonomy, we can solve some of the recent mysteries of the American economy. For instance, some economists have been puzzled (especially last year) about why wild swings in oil prices have had only muted effects on consumer spending.

Kapur’s explanation: the Plutonomy. Since the rich don’t care about higher oil prices, and they dominate spending, higher oil prices don’t matter as much to total consumer spending.

The Plutonomy also could explain larger “imbalances” such as the national debt level. The rich are so comfortably rich, Kapur explains, that they have started spending higher shares of their incomes on luxuries. They borrow much larger amounts than the “average consumer,” so they have an exaggerated impact on the nation’s debt levels and savings rates. Yet because the rich still have plenty of wealth and healthy balance sheets, their borrowing shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

In other words, much of the nation’s lower savings rate is due to borrowing by the rich. So we should worry less about the “over-stretched” average consumer.
Finally, the Plutonomy helps explain why companies that serve the rich are posting some of the strongest growth and profits these days.

“The Plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership swelling” he wrote in one research note. “Toys for the wealthy have pricing power, and staying power.”
Keep in mind that from atop the rubble of the economic meltdown, those very people are once again making big bucks and lobbying strongly for less regulation whiloe they cry about being demonized in the press. (And it is those same people who are telling congressmen, many of whom are also in the upper one percent, that they have plenty of jobs, but the unemployed are too lazy to take them.)

If you think plutonomy is a good idea (or at least a neutral one) then the current housing slump and unemployment crisis are irrelevant to the health of the nation --- as long as the government doesn't expect you to kick in more to keep these people from being forced to accept falling wages and a much lower standard of living. If that happens you might not be able to buy as many jewels and fine art and then the whole thing falls apart.

The writer did offer one little warning about the potential problems that might stem from that:

The author of the piece did offer a teensy little warning back in 2007:
Of course, Kapur says there are risks to the Plutonomy, including war, inflation, financial crises, the end of the technological revolution and populist political pressure.
I might have thought that the destruction of the middle class would be considered a primary risk for social unrest, but perhaps society's winners think they can protect their jewels and mansions by hiring Blackwater these days, so it's not a problem. In any case he brushed off all those potential consequences:
Yet he maintains that the “the rich are likely to keep getting even richer, and enjoy an even greater share of the wealth pie over the coming years.”

All of which means that, like it or not, inequality isn’t going away and may become even more pronounced in the coming years. The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.
It would appear that even in the aftermath of a near cataclysm in the financial sector, they have not changed their minds. But then, why would they? From their perspective, the government did its job by bailing out the big banks and Wall Street to save the economy and everything's back to normal.

The truth is that it is not really back to normal.

There are still those that had and still have, and continue to expect to have more, and are the only people in this nation with any real money to spend... Too bad for us that it is our money, and our government too, they have completely consumed.

But the rest of us have even less than we did before... And can expect to lose even more than we have already lost over the last 20 or 30 years. The haves are currently sitting on their pile of money in the hopes of driving wages down even more. And as long as they don't create jobs the demand for you continues to shrink. That is reality.

Why not? They can afford to. Can you afford to just sit there and watch your way of life and what used the American dream get flushed down the drain?

If we continue to do nothing all we'll have left is this Open Thread. Hope it does not leave a bad taste in your mouth!

And some more stuff, previously posted at ePM, for the rest of us have nots to choke on:

--------------

How Can Tax Cuts Make This Pile Of Money Trickle Down?

They've got their massive piece of the pie... And they want more.

Corporations Sitting On $1.84 Trillion Cash
From last month: U.S. Firms Build Up Record Cash Piles,
U.S. companies are holding more cash in the bank than at any point on record, underscoring persistent worries about financial markets and about the sustainability of the economic recovery.

The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that nonfinancial companies had socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26% from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952.
The problem is reduced demand. Continuing unemployment means that the economy is not producing demand, so businesses are not willing to risk investing in meeting demand, which means they are not hiring, which means unemployment continues.

Seriously? They are already hoarding vast sums of money - probably trying to figure out how to offshore it with our jobs too - and the GOP plan, the highly desired plan of corporations and the their rich owners, is giving them more with tax cuts for the listless elites. That will just be a bigger welfare check than the ones we already floated Wall Street for doing absolutely nothing to fix the disaster they created.

Meanwhile, the screech of the typical village idiot corporate shills and deficit peacocks is getting shrill:

Arguments From Authority
A quick note on David Brooks’s column today. I have no idea what he’s talking about when he says,
The Demand Siders don’t have a good explanation for the past two years
Funny, I thought we had a perfectly good explanation: severe downturn in demand from the financial crisis, and a stimulus which we warned from the beginning wasn’t nearly big enough. And as I’ve been trying to point out, events have strongly confirmed a demand-side view of the world.

But there’s something else in David’s column, which I see a lot: the argument that because a lot of important people believe something, it must make sense:
Moreover, the Demand Siders write as if everybody who disagrees with them is immoral or a moron. But, in fact, many prize-festooned economists do not support another stimulus. Most European leaders and central bankers think it’s time to begin reducing debt, not increasing it — as do many economists at the international economic institutions. Are you sure your theorists are right and theirs are wrong?
Yes, I am. It’s called looking at the evidence. I’ve looked hard at the arguments the Pain Caucus is making, the evidence that supposedly supports their case — and there’s no there there.

And you just have to wonder how it’s possible to have lived through the last ten years and still imagine that because a lot of Serious People believe something, you should believe it too. Iraq? Housing bubble? Inflation?

Those Deficit Peacocks won't dare look at what is really creating the deficits and what would really get more people back to work.

Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

Figure 1 for your reference... And note the heavy costs of tax cuts for the Wall Street Welfare elites and uber rich, the cravenly irresponsible masters of economic disasters that are hiding behind political maneuvering of both parties to destroy any sense of justice in the economic system to keep their gravy train looting the nation:

A huge swath of tangerine dream green handed to them on a silver platter in tax cuts that far and away benefited the rich and the GOP side is publicly voicing support for these evident do-nothings of the economy to keep from paying their fair share at the exact time that all of America is suffering these elites' disaster.

Nevermind the Pelosi's of the world pretending to be against dropping the budget hammer on you while putting in place the very real means to run over the small people's social safety nets with "procedural votes" behind closed doors.

And that is supoosed to be liberal leadership? Give me a corporatist break!

This is a war of ideals, one that the real people have been losing for far too long:

Anyone who thinks the unemployment situation is a product of poor governing on the part of this President can't recognize a class war when they see it. The real issue on the table here is corporate power and control.

Consider the recent Luntz-style attacks on the unemployed. Rather than addressing the reasons for the stubbornly high unemployment rate, they choose to demonize those who are unemployed.

We're too stupid, too lazy, or we want to be paid too much to rehire.

Of course, none of these things are true, but they offer cover for CEOs to duck the true questions about why they'd rather simply sit on the cash and forego expansion for now. They'd rather do it because they can. Because they can afford to wait until they have a puppet in the oval office who will do their bidding, who will call off the regulatory dogs, and who understands unique corporate challenges.

And while Wall Street throws itself a faux pity party:

Wall Street's pity party snit fit
Anonymous bankers complain to Politico that Democrats did not do enough to soften bank reform
Imagine two alternate realities. In one universe, the bank reform bill likely to be signed into law in the United States is generally regarded by critics as not quite up to the task of delivering on its primary goal: preventing a repeat of the financial crisis that broke the global economy in 2008. In this universe, there are differences among those who believe that the bill, while manifestly imperfect, still represents an improvement on the status quo, and those who dismiss it as irredeemably irrelevant, but there is nonetheless a widespread consensus that resistance from Republicans and moderate Democrats, in combination with a cautious White House, resulted in legislation that is much milder than what would seem to have been called for under the circumstances (a devastating economic collapse precipitated by recklessly irresponsible financial institutions.)

Now let's visit another universe, one constructed from anonymous comments relayed to Politico reporters from enraged Wall Streeters. In "Wall St. Plans Payback For Reg Reform," we learn that there is a "great deal of frustration" being felt by bankers towards Democratic politicians who have the gall to come to Wall Street asking for money, after having dared to vote for bank reform.

While the final Wall Street reform bill turned out to be less onerous than banks feared, there are still hard feelings, especially over the rhetoric used to slam banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorganChase...
... Still, feelings in the financial industry are very raw, especially toward moderate and New York-area Democrats who, the industry feels, did not do enough to ease the potential impact of the financial overhaul.
Continue reading
HTWW agrees with the bankers on one count: It is indeed "unseemly" for politicians to be soliciting Wall Street for campaign contributions while at the same time carving out the final shape of bank reform.

No kidding that it is unseemly. It is beyond obscene given that it is clear that a lot of the regulatory changes to the finanacial industries are highly illusory.

And much of the continued fight is to keep the country from sliding any faster into the corporatocracy deep end, we have to remember that we are fighting hugely powerful interests that will spend millions to fight any regulation - even the laws that have been in place for years - in order to grease the slippery slope and even if the fight's cost dwarf the minute penalties from enforcement of legislation:

Wal-Mart spends $2 million fighting $7K fine
The Death Star of American corporations, Wal-Mart, has decided to contest a minor fine from OSHA. In doing so, the Arkansas based company has amassed $2 million in legal fees, according to the NY Times.

The $7,000 fine from OSHA was for the trampling death of a Wal-Mart employee , crushed by a surging mob of customers outside a Long Island Wal-Mart the day after Thanksgiving, 2008.
And BTW, they are using Teabagging Konstatooshunull Lawe (sic) to argue, OSHA lacks the authority to issue fines in the first place

The people we are fighting against have the big money guns and they control the strings of every corporate puppet at every level of government, at every turn of the traditional media's corrupted phrases... And they are liars.

The only thing we do have on our side is the sheer numbers of real people to effect change. And the occasional Financial realists that are already in a position to advocate for what they know is the right thing to do, both morally and fiscally. Yves there, at Naked Capitalism, echoing thoughts of the Financial Times' Martin Wolf:

Wolf next establishes that the private sector in countries all around the world is saving. The OECD forecasts that savings in advanced economies will be 7% of GDP, or roughly $3 trillion. In theory, these savings could go to investments in emerging economies, but the private sector in those countries is projected to be saving too. The Institute for International Finance anticipates a total of $300 billion for 2010.

Wolf then explains how this all plays out:
According to the IIF, the net flow of private funds from advanced countries to emerging countries will be close to $700bn this year. But that will be almost entirely offset by an official outflow, in the form of foreign currency reserves, of close to $600bn. These huge official interventions prevent the emergence of large net capital inflows into emerging countries. Instead, the private sectors of the advanced countries accumulate net claims on the private sectors of emerging countries, while the governments of emerging countries accumulate offsetting claims on the governments of advanced countries.

The bottom line is clear: there exists, at present, a gigantic net flow of funds into the liabilities of the governments of advanced countries. Of course, some countries can still get into difficulties. But it is quite wrong to argue that the difficulties of a Greece or a Spain entail difficulties ahead for the US, or even the UK. The opposite is far more likely: flight from risk entails flight into something less risky. What is the least perilous asset for the investment of gigantic private financial surpluses? The only answer is the public debt of the big advanced countries.

These flows of funds consist only of identities. So what are the causal factors? Maybe, the collapse in private spending in the wake of the financial crisis was caused by terror of the fiscal deficits to come. Maybe, the moon is made of green cheese, too. There is also next to no sign of crowding out in capital markets. The plausible hypothesis, then, is that the fiscal deficits were a response to the collapsing desire to spend of the crisis-hit private sector. Fiscal policy could have been tighter. But the result would have been a depression.

What then of the future? Suppose there is no significant change in policy in emerging economies. Then if a fiscal contraction in advanced countries is not to cause a slowdown, even a second recession, it must be accompanied by an upsurge in private spending.

The argument must be that improved confidence in the long-run sustainability of public finances would lead to greater private consumption and investment spending now, even if there is no significant effects on interest rates or the exchange rate. I am highly sceptical of this argument (see “Why it is right for central banks to keep printing”, Financial Times, June 22, 2010). But grant that this is true. Then the best policy is to slow the long-term growth in spending on age-related programmes. This comes out clearly from the discussion of long-term fiscal trends in the excellent new annual report from the Bank for International Settlements.
Yves here. So Wolf, and the Bank of International Settlement (hardly a bunch of socialists) think keeping old people from having to subsist on pet food would be good for economies around the world. I’d love to see Wolf up against the Social Security fear mongers from the Peterson Foundation. Fur would fly.

Meanwhile? We will still have to listen to absolute drivel coming out of a failed incoprporated system of government for the corporation, of the corporation and by the corporation:

So I was watching a CNN panel today and the subject up for debate was something along the lines of, "Is Obama shedding constituents? Critics say he's abandoned Wall Street."
My first reaction was, "Wait, critics are saying this? Are you sure that wasn't what his allies said?" But no -- I actually had to listen to a debate over whether Obama was making a huge political mistake by "abandoning" his bestest pals in the world at the megabanks.* You know, the guys whose greed and irresponsibility caused the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

(*Obama hasn't actually "abandoned" the banks in the least, but that's a story for another post.)
And then I thought, "Why the hell are we the only culture in the whole goldurned world where it's seen as a political risk to abandon the people who are responsible for causing widespread economic hardship?" And all this got me thinking about the super-weird "We-Must-Be-Nice-to-Rich-People" doctrine that has run through our national discourse since the 1980s.
You see, there was a time when American politicians could say things such as "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes" (Andrew Jackson) and "Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth" (Teddy Roosevelt) and "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering... They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred" (FDR) and no one thought anything of it. Indeed, as Simon Johnson and James Kwak show in their excellent book 13 Bankers, hating on financial oligarchs is as American as hating on soccer, dating all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

Yes... Via CNN we get the ultimate circular firing squad of "Leave the rich alllooooone!"

The problem with their table talk? Joe and Suzy Sixpack's livelihoods, their ability to just scrape by during the elites disaster capitalism coupled with looting the nation crime sprees, are the roadkill carcasses they will gladly dine on to continue take their money for nothing.

I'd say that rather than giving the elites a bigger piece of the splattered, half-baked schemes of gambling casino pie in the sky... It is long passed time to let them have their own medicinal cake of austerity, tightening their fat elitist buckles.

But eating any cake is too good for the masters of economic disasters that want more welfare for the rich and consider pissing on you, the poor, as trickle down.
The slogan for today's real populism ought to be a well deserved:

Save America - Eat the rich.

Lead the financial sycophants and their listless do-nothing way of life to the slaughter. Because it is clear it is either going to be you or them... And lord knows the rich don't want to be held responsible for their gambling habits, their crimes and their their failures.

As a side note: If you aren't already mad as hell about this shit-salad-sandwich that we are being force fed daily, then I do question your sanity.

--------------

Please chalk this whole post up the little voice inside my head that is screaming:

"WE'RE DOOMED!!!!"

Some noteworthy pieces, IMHO, to go with this:

primary colors

2010-08-12T12:47:00.004-04:00

Primary season is finally over in CT. (Only 82 more days until the November elections!)

The New Milford results are in. And while there's nothing particularly surprising about how the town voted, I am shocked at the low turnout.

According to the tallies at the Danbury News-Times:

1497 registered Republicans voted for a senate candidate.

929 registered Democrats voted for a gubernatorial candidate.

That's only 2416 people, out of a town with some 30,000 souls (nearly 18,000 eligible voters, according to the Housatonic Times).

There are, I'm sure, several reasons for the low turnout.

-It's a primary, not a general, so people aren't as plugged in as they should be.

-It's a mid-term election, so people aren't as fired up as they would be for a presidential race.

-It's summer, and people are out of town.

-There were more Republican races (did I hear some guy named Marty was running for probate judge?), so Democrats weren't as interested.

-Because it's a primary, where one must vote within their own party, independents were left out.

But you know what? All of those reasons suck. There is absolutely no reason for New Milford voters to sit an election out.

I am always amazed at the number of people who refuse their responsibilities as citizens by opting out of election. And then feel they have a legitimate reason to complain about the state of affairs. Voting is the responsibility that comes with our constitutional rights. To shirk that responsibility is downright disrespectful. To the constitution, to the republic, to one's fellow citizens, and to one's self.

That's particularly so in these off-year elections and primaries, when each vote counts more, since only a single state, or district, or town, is in play.

I've heard people say, "Well, all the candidates for office X are bums, so I won't vote at all." Which makes as much sense as John Boehner explaining his devotion to both reducing the deficit and extending the Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/john_boehner_talks_tax_cuts.html

(But, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say something completely ridiculous about politics, I could probably buy myself a senate seat.)

If you want any say in how your government works, educate yourself about the candidates, and then choose one.

If you believe in free speech, exercise yours at the ballot box.

If you want to earn the moniker of "patriot," get off your butt and go to the polls.

If you don't vote, you're just part of the problem.

Here's hoping the turnout numbers are much, much higher in November.

"Does Probate = Masterb-te," or "Are We Getting Jerked Off by the Judge?"

2010-08-09T13:22:00.002-04:00

What's the deal with this primary for Probate Judge? Have you ever seen such energy put into an election campaign (Oops - I mean other than this spring's budget referendum)? Why are New Milford Republicans putting so much energy behind Judge Marty? Who stands to lose here - probate should be pretty simple, right? Would the losers be the people of New Milford? Or a privileged few who might benefit from having a buddy on the bench? (What - me cynical? Nah.)

The Elephants have been working on electing Marty since the beginning of the year. There were plenty of meetings at a Town Councilman's private office, multiple fundraisers, and meet & greets covered by the press (if you can call the Spectrum "press"). There was even a last minute dirty trick by local leader Rog Szendy. Yet, Marty lost the endorsement at the local nominating convention - he only had the support of the New Milford delegates. Apparently the other town delegations were pissed off at Szendy's dirty politicking, and they all supported William DeFeo of New Fairfield. Good job, Rog.

This election was deemed "so important" by the local Elephants that Board of Ed member Lynette Rigdon skipped her BOE obligation (the Education Connection Board of Directors Meeting) in order to be at the nominating convention. Yep - she deemed attending a local probate nominating convention more important than carrying out her duties as an elected member of the BOE. But, worse than that, she didn't want to admit to the public why she missed the meeting. In the minutes of the May 11, 2010, BOE meeting, "Ms. Rigdon said she was unable to get to the last meeting..." Pretty pathetic. But, then again, it shows the importance these clowns have put on this minor election. Still confused? Me too.

The Mayor even got her boyfriend, State Rep. Clark Chapin, to write a letter to the local rags endorsing Marty. Why would he suddenly publicly endorse a candidate - he doesn't put in the same effort for his "partner," much less higher profile offices like Town Council. Why, Clark? Why now?

A few of the New Milford politico's who know both men say DeFeo is honest and acts with integrity. They also like Marty as a person, but are wary of his key backers - the shady NM Republican cabal. Not to be cynical, but the politico's are whispering.

So let's review: DeFeo wins nomination with support from all other towns in the district. New Milford carries on the fight, pouring a great deal of energy and $$ into a fight against a loyal, long standing fellow Republican. Then, throw in that the New Milford Repubs are famous for throwing dirt and dirty tricks, and you get a recipe for skepticism.

Luckily, I can't cast a vote in this primary. If you are an "R," don't blindly follow your local leaders. Ask some questions before you pull the lever on Tuesday. I'm not sure who the best candidate is - but I wouldn't defer to Rog Szenmaster's judgement.

Loving Books, Libraries, and the Internet

2010-08-04T22:44:00.007-04:00

If you read certain local blogs, or letters to the editor of local papers, you may notice a recurring theme from some disgruntled citizens. Libraries, and the books they contain, are our enemy. (Who knew?) And the best way to save money and preserve democracy from socialism is to stop buying books for our town and school libraries. Instead, we should buy everyone a computer, and they can download books from the internet.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. There is so much wrong with that sentiment, I barely know where to start.

First of all, public and school libraries are awesome. (Sorry to go all fan-boy on you all, but I actually mean “awesome” in its original sense: overwhelmingly, profoundly powerful.)

Libraries are a pillar of democracy. They are a level playing field for anyone seeking knowledge, self-education or escape into fiction. No money down, no cover charge, and no entry test required. (You don’t even have to read. But it helps.)

Public libraries have been a measure of a culture’s or a community’s wealth and sophistication – and egalitarianism – since before there were books. (When they were scrolls. And can you imagine those “oh, books will never replace the tactile experience of scrolling through a text!” laments from ages past?) The library at Thebes announced itself as “medicine for the soul.”

Libraries are a great use of tax dollars. Really. For every $1 invested in a public library, the community receives $3-$4 or more in benefits. Study after study from the last decade confirm this ripple effect. http://www.oclc.org/roi/ The education, literacy, and cultural programs offered by our libraries enrich us all. Public libraries can act as free universities to a motivated scholar. Plenty of intellectual luminaries – from Ben Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to Frank Zappa and August Wilson – are autodidacts. (and some of our dimmer bulbs: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002210010) In short: want economic development? Invest in a public library.

Libraries can reveal the history of a community. Beyond books, libraries often house historic documents, maps, portraits, or other artifacts that celebrate people and events from our past. Check out New Milford Library’s top floor, or the glass display case in the entry way.

Now, before everyone starts screaming, “Ooh, gimleteyes is anti-technology! Gimleteyes is anti-progress!” stop. I embrace technology. I adore the internet. I don’t know what we ever did before wikipedia. I am practically dating my kindle. I am ready for the 21^st century and all it has to offer.

I can think of many ways to further integrate technology into the classroom. E-readers could replace those heavy, overpriced, too-soon out-of-date textbooks at the high school and college level. Smartboards can help immensely with presentations (for starters, they are a helluva lot more readable than blackboards). Downloading films or video presentations on demand can be a cost-saver as well as a space-saver. Internet connections can allow students to interact with other schools, other teachers (I know that Ellen Page commercial is a bit cutsie – shouldn’t all those adorable Chinese children be in bed? – but the possibilities are still amazing). And the assistive technology available to those with disabilities is truly miraculous.

But (you knew this was coming) I do not believe that a laptop and a wireless connection cures all ills, or replaces brick-and-mortar libraries or paper-and-ink books. Libraries, even though they now hold microfilm, microfiche, cds, dvd, downloadable books and internet connections, are nothing without books.

Computers are tools. They can be used for good or ill. But they require knowledge and skill to be used well. Simply giving all students a laptop will not raise test scores (in fact, it might lower them, as students spend more time on facebook or surfing for porn instead of reading.) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/14/computer-access-leads-to-lower-test-scores-study-suggests/ The same, it seems, can not be said of books. Surrounding a child with books is all but guaranteed to boost their intellect. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072005303.html

Too much integration of technology makes it far too easy (and tempting) to plagiarize. Students can simply cut and paste whole chunks of online text into a Word doc to create a Frankenstein’s monster of a paper. Doing this not only often creates unreadable dreck, but undermines students’ abilities to analyze text, think critically about their source material, or do research that deviates from their own point of view.

As anyone who spends their day at a computer knows, too much screen time can create eyestrain. It can also fundamentally rewire our brains, making us skimmers instead of contemplative thinkers. And it undermines fine motor skills. Students need to learn to read and write the “old-fashioned way” because reading and writing text on a page develops and stimulates a whole range of skills that simply can’t be learned via computer.

And what about the expense involved in cutting-edge technology? That’s something New Milford in particular has a hard time addressing, especially in these “cut the education budget!” times. Witness the latest town council meeting, where a citizen suggested uploading meetings to the town website. Responding with a letter to the editor of the NM Spectrum, Tom Morey quipped, “hosting meetings on the web costs money and the town does the best it can without burdening the taxpayers and creating a new line item in the budget …. the town has only one IT person, not dozens like the Board of Education has.” http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/opinion/article/Calls-Board-of-Education-to-task-for-lack-of-594466.php

For the record, the Board of Ed doesn’t have “dozens” of IT personnel. The superintendent’s office has 2 “technical staff” persons; NMHS, SMS and SNIS each have 1; and JPS, NES and H&P share 2 between them. NMHS and SMS also have 3 “tech education” instructors, but I gather they are there to teach computing to students, and not write code or fix machinery. That’s a grand total of 10 people who have computer expertise, which is less than 1 dozen. (Oh, Tom.) Never mind that the taping of town council meetings is funded by the PTO and filmed by a school tech staffer. (Oh, Tom again.) If it’s too expensive to link a digital recording to a webpage, and people feel that 7 tech personnel and 3 teachers for 5000 students and 600 staffers is the height of decadence, how on earth did we graduate from punch cards? We certainly won’t be doing much tech investment this year: the BoE had to cut capital investment to save teaching positions and keep the school budget at $0 growth (again).

And that's the scary part. How much overlap is there between the "close the libraries!" and "cut the budget!" crowd? If we stop investing in traditional ink-and-paper books (an absurd proposition, but one that has persisted this budget season), but fail to properly support e-learning, we'll be a community of idiots. (If I were a conspiracy theorist, this is where I'd say, "And that's their diabolical plan!" But I think really, it's just people talking out of their a$$.)

There is room – there is a fundamental need – for both “old tech” and “new tech” in our schools and our community. We must adequately support both systems of learning. We should embrace new technology. And we should celebrate our treasure we have in our libraries. Lady Bird Johnson once said, “Perhaps no place in any community is so totally democratic as the town library. The only entrance requirement is interest.” What does that make those who wish to abandon libraries?