Wonder why some in the MSM are so opposed to Ron Paul?
Click here to watch a Real Clear Politics clip of C-Span. In the one minute video, you'll see the press pool for the Pentagon. And you'll hear:
"See this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is president,"
Shocking! Some members of the MSM are just like some of the government officials they are supposed to keep honest. They're more concerned with their own self-interest, rather than the interest of the people reading their reports.
Besides the implications of this reporter's moment of candor, I'm wondering if anyone will publish a story naming the reporter.
GOP chairmen are getting congratulatory phone calls from President Barack Obama and private meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Attorney General Eric Holder. The incoming Agriculture Committee chairman, Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), is setting up a regular monthly lunch with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The White House's efforts moved into high gear shortly after the Republican victory on Election Day.
If you read the full article, it appears that every committee chair is getting some mono-on-mono time with the administrators who they will oversee. Politico even mentions that Ben Bernanke sat down the Chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa.
I wonder if Ben Bernanke has yet placed his congratulatory phone call to Monetary Policy Chairman Ron Paul?
hahaha...
I love it!
But in all seriousness, regardless of Congressman Paul's philosophical views on monetary policy, his chairmanship will be founded on two important principles that have been missing in that committee for a long time:
1) He will demand what all reasonable and rational people -- this excludes The Fedsters -- expect: transparency.
2) He will use the bully pulpit to push a national discussion on monetary policy, including:
a) Fiat money vs. sound money?
b) Fractional-reserve banking vs. full-reserve banking?
c) Keynesian economics vs. Austrian school economics?
d) Should America have a central bank?
The Establishmentarians like to dismiss this discussion by explaining there is an "international consensus" on all of these issues. But therein lies the problem. The consensus -- that money grows on trees -- has been decreed by The Political Class. And therefore this is no consensus among regular people. And my view is that most regular people know that money doesn't grow on trees.
The Herald's reporting that AT&T U-Verse customers are going to be getting the local public access channels by February. It's taking longer than it should have. But it certainly wouldn't be happening this quickly, if not for the "encouragement" of the Council.
There are some possible drawbacks to this though. For years, Cox was a monopoly in Cheshire. Likely due to that monopoly, they provided various groups -- most notably the two major political parties -- access to their TV studios. I suspect access to their studio may be restricted to some extent as they lose their monopoly status... and probably get more freedom from CTs regulators. But IMO this is NBD.
With new media it's probably easier to shoot high quality video in a living room or at a park, rather than scheduling studio time and having to learn the use of the expensive equipment. So the benefits clearly outweigh the drawbacks.
I recall quite clearly the outrage toward the Bush Administration for controlling the flow information from the White House to the public. I think it was noticeable to me during the "accidental release" of information regarding Valerie Plame.
Now we see the Rell Administration, particularly her Chief of Staff Lisa Moody, being publicly chastised for contolling information as they've prohibited all staff from speaking with a new administration:
Moody is renowned among Rell's administrators for insisting on knowledge and control of even small details, and for heavily managing the image and message of the administration.
"This is a completely unnecessary artificial roadblock to the transition, whoever the governor is," Lawlor said. "Obviously the governor's chief of staff has a history of keeping all the agencies on a very short leash, and this gets in the way of good government.
Some information should be kept confidential. But the way some people would like control information is ridiculous. Transparency and good government matter.
With my temporary departure from home, I'm sure I'll be posting a lot less. Partly as a result of my departure and partly a result of simply wanting to increase communication with Cheshire's voters, BOE member Tony Perugini is starting his own blog. Known to many of you as a regular, candid member of TWL, you can find Tony's new blog here:
. I sent the following letter to the Herald. I'm hoping it's published tomorrow.
To the Editor:
Thank you to the many people who have extended their best wishes as I begin my charitable work in Haiti. Before I leave, I wish to invite my neighbors to vote to end the systemic corruption in Hartford.
Then there are incumbents like Rep. Vickie Nardello who, while personally decent, are enablers of corruption. Her silence on the likes of Fritz and Gaffey makes her complicit. Nardello is part of the leadership in Hartford. She represents business-as-usual and she needs to go.
Kathy Brown is a refreshing alternative. She’ll work to end corruption, restore good government, and balance the budget. Please join me in voting for Kathy Brown for 89th district Rep.
Thankfully, Len raised the issue critical to the issues facing Hartford. The corrupt politicians who run the show and need to go:
Speaking in favor of term limits, Suzio criticized Gaffey as a victim of his long tenure in the legislature, and brought up reporting violations in his campaigns that were uncovered as recently as last year, as well as his relationship with a state university associate dean while he voted to fund the university system.
Fair and necessary points. But Sen. Gaffey responded:
strongly by saying Suzio should be ashamed for bringing up his personal life, and in remarks after the debate, said it was "better to be a gentleman than score cheap points."
No, Mr. Gaffey. YOU are the one who should be ashamed. But like Mary Fritz, you are so out-of-touch that you don't even realize how wrong you are.
At last night's debate, Vickie Nardello (D) and Kathy Brown (R) were told and asked:
The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?
Here is their response:
After years of seeing it, I've gotten tired of Vickie spewing facts to divert attention without ever actually answering a question. Which in this case was:
In an effort to balance the budget, would you defund the turf?
Instead we get the runaround... like when she started defending her opposition to the death penalty in all instances because an innocent person may be put to death... huh?... news to Rep. Nardello... those two predators are NOT innocent! Yet in her heart of hearts, she wants to protect the lives of those two murderers!
Agree with her or not -- and I agree with her -- at least Kathy Brown was direct in her answer.
I've been following the Rosemary Lane reconstruction lately. And though I'm leaving, the waste and mismanagement in Town Hall has not yet stopped. I doubt it would ever end completely, but the Council needs to take measures to reduce it.
Step one is recognizing where it has already happened.
Step two is taking measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.
For that reason, I'm still asking:
Why was Rosemary Lane repaved in 2008, but storm drains were constructed in 2010?
And also... what are the Public Works "best practices" that led to this mess?
I've already spoken with the Planning Committee Chairman, Jimmy Sima. He will be following up on this.
At last month's regular Council meeting, I made a very simple request. I asked the TM to publicly disclose the DPWs "to do" list. I didn't want a lot of details. I simply wanted the taxpayers to have the ability to hold staff and Council members accountable.
I wanted greater transparency and accountability.
Too bad the TM is opposed to such good government measures as they would be in direct conflict with his desired form of government... power & control... control the information.
Needless to say, I've gotten virtually nothing... nothing except for a promise to provide me the DPWs future road work schedule as soon as it's completed in a few weeks... even though I asked for a list of everything under the sun, including such relatively mundane items as potholes... and bigger items, such as culvert dredging. I didn't ask for a road work schedule.
But since I wasn't about to continue chasing the TM with his endless, never-to-be-fulfilled "I'll get back to you" promises, I simply chose to use the bully pulpit.
I waited until the next Council meeting and asked again.
And fortunately for the taxpayers, the TM wasn't at the last Council meeting... though his staff was. So they had to address my concern when I raised it again.
According to the DPW Director, releasing the DPWs "to do" list or "inventory" is a matter of policy:So my concern -- a concern shared by many voters -- returns to the TM.
As I depart, I will encourage the Council to direct the TM to release the DPW inventory of requested work that they have accepted as DPWs responsibility.
And it should be that simple, but this is discouraging. It is the type of thing that shouldn't even require a request... is should simply be done. It should not get the runaround from the TM. But that is his modus operandi.
Control the information.
If no one knows, then no one can hold him accountable!
That must stop.
Regardless, based on the DPW Director's candid response it's obvious to me that the TM is simply dawdling on my request.
I'll ask the Planning Committee Chairman, Jimmy Sima, to follow thru on this.
My concern was not only increasing fees in this economy, it was also the process.
The process concerns me because I don't want residents to believe that a Council vote has real legislative authority, unless that is true. And based on previous TM explanations I've been given, I understand that the Council has no actual authority over P&R fees.
So why did we vote?
I'm not entirely sure. But the TM wasn't there and my process concern was relatively minor in the bigger picture. Nonetheless...
Going forward, I hope that when the Council votes on P&R and pool fees it is made clear to the voters that the vote is symbolic only. And I also hope the TM -- the paid, full-time staff -- stops failing to disclose relevant facts when the Council votes. But then, the TM has always had a preference for omitting -- rather than disclosing -- relevant information.
I think it's important that the voters be given an accurate understanding of Council actions. And I've felt this way for years. For example, in June 2007 the TM had the authority to work with the Friends of Boulder Knoll, yet he refused to act. But the former Council majority refused to publicly chastise the TM. So they kowtowed to his wishes and knowingly misled the voters by voting to authorize and direct the TM to act.
I'm leaving the Council now. But I hope that when issues regarding the authority of the Council vs. the authority of the TM arise, the Council makes clear to the voters if the vote has legal standing or is simply symbolic. Symbolic votes have value, but the voters should know if a vote is symbolic or legal.
Previously I commented Project Vote Smart. It was in relation to 89th district's race for State Representative between Kathy Brown (R) and Vickie Nardello (D).
Of the other five candidates running for State Rep in Cheshire, only Al Adinolfi has completed their "political courage" test. So agree with Al or not, at least you can click here and see where he stands...
If you believe that government should be conducted in smoke-filled rooms and behind closed doors, then you should definitely support Mary Fritz. She's quite vocal in her opposition to good government:
I just emailed the following to the two candidates for the 89th House district:
To: kathy at brownforct2010.com vnardello at aol.com vickie.nardello at cga.ct.gov
Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Nardello:
The August 3, 2008 editorial in the Waterbury Republican American clearly explains the existence of an annual $36,000,000 discretionary fund in the state budget. You can findthe editorial here.
Do you support or oppose the existence (continuance) of these discretionary funds?
Furthermore, while the Bond Commission has already voted in favor of discretionary funds over the past few years, not all of these discretionary funds have actually been spent. In relation to balancing the state budget, do you support or oppose a “clawback” of unexpended discretionary funds? (This question is related to both the $10m x 3 people that goes through the Bond Commission and the $2m x 3 people that does not go through the Bond Commission.)
Regards, Tim White Cheshire
(P.S. Vickie... I wasn't sure if the state address was appropriate for an election question, but also wasn't sure if you still used your AOL address. And I really am hoping for an answer on this. I've repeatedly asked the same question of Foley and Malloy and neither of them have answered yet.)
It's the same question for which I've been chasing Foley & Malloy. And neither of them will answer. Now it's time to start asking our legislators.
I thank Jimmy Sima and the Planning Committee for looking at not only the initial costs, but at the lifecycle costs, including the much larger relationship. It's also nice to see the Council and BOE doing this for many big, new projects, such as the pool, the turf and natural gas pipelines.
“It’s one thing that the board is taking an approach where they want more concrete answers about building a financial reserve for replacing the field,” said Peter Massey, a nine-year school board member who is stepping down this month. “But on the other side of the coin, I can’t remember doing it this way for any other major capital project in town. Is it a smart thing? Yes, but it shouldn’t be the thing that’s holding this up.”
I'm glad to see bipartisan support for the review of long-term costs for various projects in town. Though I'm confused by the statement from Bob Behrer:
“When the town built the senior center, nobody asked how they were going to pay for replacing it or modernizing it some day,” Behrer said. “They just went ahead and built it like every other town project except for this one.”
As I explained above, that's simply not true. There's a new sheriff in town. The 20th Council is less than one year old, yet it's been reviewing the long-term costs on several large ticket projects.
I thank Council Chairman Tim Slocum for making this change happen. I also hope that people begin to acknowledge the reality of the 20th Council, rather than repeatedly referencing the inaction and lack of long-term planning by former Councils.
On September 14, I emailed and called the campaigns of both Tom Foley and Dan Malloy. I asked them a simple question. As a voter, I want to know if they support the existence of Mary Fritz' slush fund:
Unfortunately, despite calling and emailing the two camps since September 14, I haven't heard anything. So I decided to escalate the issue.
Since I quoted a WRA editorial when I posed my question, I've called the WRA editor and reminded him about his 2008 editorial. My hope is that he'll do an editorial and get this issue back in front of the voters.
Considering that Tom Foley is apparently running on a fiscally conservative message... and Dan Malloy is apparently running on a good government message... I see no valid reason why they would support the existence of the slush funds.
Yet they remain silent.
Maybe I'll try Dennis House? He's probably moderating the CBS Gubernatorial debate.
The 20th Council took office last December. At that time I realized that the pool and the operating budget were going to occupy most of the Council's time through the May / June timeframe. Then summer vacations and the capital budget occupied July & August. But September is here and the Planning Committee has a full plate:
1. Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Sidewalk repair planning.
4. Pavement management review.
5. Rosemary Lane project.
6. Potential school gas line hook-ups.
7. Drainage issues at Cheshire High School boys’ locker room.
8. Boulder Knoll pond.
9. Potential cell tower at Waste Water Treatment Plant.
10. Linear Park extension.
11. Adjournment.
Most interesting to me is the first discussion item on the agenda: sidewalks. This relates directly to one of my good government efforts in the former Council. Back in August 2008 and since then, I've suggested:
using staff's recommendations, the Council should vote to establish the criteria used in prioritizing improvements to roads (along with sidewalks, curbs and perhaps tree trimming)... then the Council should set the budget (subject to voter approval at referendum) and there should be no deviation from those lists unless there is an emergency.
This idea has taken on new importance this month. It's not only about making government work, it's about appropriately using the $200,000 sidewalk fund created by the Council in the capital budget last month. Do we know how and where that money be spent?
Another item of great interest to me is Rosemary Lane. Why did we repave the road in 2008, then install dry wells in 2010? You can see some of my recent posts here, here and here.
And another item of particular interest that I've been following is Cheshire's increased natural gas capacity, including for schools and households.
I thank the Planning Committee Chairman, Jimmy Sima, for placing all of this on the agenda.
As for why the Council is discussing the linear trail... got me. I have no idea. I know one Councilman who loves it, but as far as I'm concerned, the 2010 vote on the pool and especially the 2005 vote on the linear trail should have sent a very clear message to the Council. And frankly, in looking at recent trends in referenda results, I'm wondering if the voters will view this November's track referendum as a school project or a recreation project? We'll see in another month....
I've been on the Council for seven years now. One thing I have yet to fully understand is why I make requests of the DPW -- and get agreement to perform the work -- then months later some work is not yet done, while some work is done the following day. And I'm not talking about a major project vs. fixing a pothole.
I'm saying that the responses from the DPW seem haphazard. It's almost as if the DPW doesn't maintain an ongoing "to do" list... not a list for every request that is made, but just a list for every request that is made for which the DPW has agreed to act.
But I must be wrong, right? The DPW must keep an ongoing to do list of all work that is to be performed, right?
Assuming I'm wrong and such a list exists, I've asked the TM to make public the list.
I asked him at last week's Council meeting:Since such a list must exist, I figured I would've gotten a copy of it by now. But I haven't.
Shocking.
For the time being, I figured a scratchpad would suffice. But going forward, this may be something that should be institutionalized. Perhaps we even set up some sort of website database that allows residents to report problems, including:
1) street address;
2) phone number / email / best contact;
3) description of problem and maybe even an option for photo attachments to expedite the process.
Then residents could track the followup, such as:
1) whether the DPW takes ownership of the issue; and if so
2) an estimated completion date, etc.
This would probably lead to better customer service. And it would certainly lead to greater comfort that issues are getting a closure. And with the DPWs closure... if a resident did not get a satisfactory response, then s/he could begin to escalate the issue to the TM and eventually to the Council. Barring a satisfactory response by the Council, the resident has the voting booth.
But without a clear response / action from the DPW, it leaves people wondering what's happening. That's not good government. And it's not acceptable.
Tim White
P.S. -- This request is different from my years old request for the DPW to provide the Council with the criteria they use in prioritizing the use of funds in constructing / maintaining sidewalks, roads, curbs, etc... as well as the list of projects after the funds have been prioritized.
1) Governor -- $12,000,000; 2) Speaker of the House -- $12,000,000; and 3) Senate President -- $12,000,000.
Yesterday I reached out to both camps for the second time. I got a response from the Foley camp. They acknowledged my question, but have not yet provided an answer. But I've only gotten crickets from Dan Malloy.
Obviously Foley's response is inadequate, but Malloy's is even worse.
This past summer I spoke highly of Dan Malloy here, here and here. But he hasn't even responded to my legitimate question, let alone answered it.
I certainly hope both candidates find this to be a simple, if relatively small, way to begin addressing the state budget deficit / state debt.
I recall advocating that the Town Government Channel be offered on AT&T U-Verse at least a year ago. But I'm not finding any mention on TWL farther back than January of this year, which you can see here. Regardless, at Tuesday's Council meeting the Town Manager informed the Council that AT&T U-Verse may begin offering the Town Government Channel by the time the holiday season arrives.
That's great news because I've heard from a number of people in town who have U-Verse, but still want to see the Town Government Channel.I thank Town Manager Michael Milone and his staff for their efforts.
President Bush-On-Steroids -- a.k.a. Barack Obama -- is back in the news. Ignoring his previous claims that waterboarding of foreigners was torture and shouldn't occur, President Obama is up to his old tricks!
I said it then and I say it now: Waterboarding of foreigners shouldn't occur. But the assassination of American citizens??
Where exactly does He draw the line??
This is one very good reason to hand Mr. Issa the gavel for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Clearly Nancy Pelosi isn't too concerned about the assassination of American citizens.
