We all know that Bysiewicz admitted, publicly, on the record, that she does not have ten years of experience practicing law as the Connecticut Constitution requires to be attorney general.

What does that mean?

If she’s not qualified to represent the state, the state has NO counsel. That’s open season on the state.

That’s also open season to litigate against the state, undisputed. Whether it’s the income tax, the citizen’s election program, DCF or whatever you may have a problem with, stock up on paper, ink and law books.

A Bysiewicz victory would allow us to literally sue large state government out of existence. It’s the only Democratic victory I look forward to.

I have been disappointed with the Norwich Bulletin’s reporting on this matter. I was called (and quoted) by Deborah Straszheim in the first article.

Ms. Straszheim had already spoken with Dr. Hamid when she called me. SPECIFICALLY, she advised that Dr. Hamid told her that there were no building planned. I told her that I had seen the plans with a building on property (right side of road, set back about 300′). She stated that Dr. Hamid said there wasn’t one, and was essentially challenging my feedback. I told her to look at the plans herself! Unfortunately, the published articles by the Bulletin have not called out this discrepancy. If she was being truthful in reporting, it should have read that I told her there was a building, while Dr. Hamid stated there wasn’t….

Also, residents are concerned about other uses of the property. What we have identified as Zone 3 or Zone 4 (back of property) has undisclosed uses. What is planned for this zone is criteria for consideration of a wetlands crossing, but alas no answers. If the CCM wants to be neighbors, I’d ask that they be forthcoming with their plan so that we can judge such on its merits.

  

Oddly, the Norwich Bulletin ran notice of the Public Hearing for Inland Wetlands & Watercourses on the front page today.  Reporter Deborah Straszheim was sniffing around yesterday for public reaction to the potential Muslim Cemetery on the Canterbury/Lisbon Town line.  At the time of this posting, the comments section has gone wild with both accusations of racism and outright statements demanding deportation of Muslims.  Neither represent the real public here. 

Sharks from Connecticut’s news stations are knocking on doors in the area looking for local reaction. 

How do we really feel? Give the project honest consideration and offer input based upon its merits.

My prediction? – We’re going to have a civil meeting, but some will bring up immaterial concerns (stuff that belongs @ P&Z).  One wildcard – the room might be too full and the meeting gets postponed.

 

Have a good look at this important article -

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1895-Financial-Terrorism-You-Decide.html

Let’s recap –

2008, Hank Paulson: Put the money in the bag or the economy gets it.

2010, Robert Gibbs: Put the guy back in who continues to put the money in the bag, or the economy gets it.

Remember what happened in 2007 when we had reservations about putting the money in the bag? The Fed yanked $125 billion from the banking system in FOUR DAYS, September 19^th to the 24^th, 2008 to be precise.

Let this much be clear. Every senator who votes to reconfirm Bernanke and/or doesn’t do everything in his or her power to fire him must be fired – no exceptions.

At sixteen years old, I worked at a local Taco Bell in Orange, California. I was the unique marginally-middle class bright white boy that spoke Spanish competently. Perfect for the manager who wanted to push the ‘Bell to the next level. I slung tacos for no less than six months. I met some incredibly cool illegal Mexicans, shadier than (you know what) Americans filling managerial slots (and stealing receipts). I also met the guy that eventually helped me join the US Navy.

At some point, my job demanded more than a high school junior could muster. 24 hours a week during the school year, training my replacements, and making $4.58 per hour barely covered the invonvenience. Instead of resigning peacefully, I waited to be fired for insubordination and tardiness. My management gracefully gave me a week to find a new job. During that period, both the management and customers paid for that grace period.

I no longer told the supervisors about the Mexicans tearing up cockroachs to put them into the burritos destined for police officers and deputies in the drive thru (yeah…it happens). I allowed the lame 23 year old guy I worked with to drink out the the poo-poo cup (a cold soda given to him with a full sized flotaing poo-poo mixed in the the ice). I agreed to look the other way during lower management theft on weekends for a free four dollar meal after work. What they didn’t realize that was leaving a decent guy like myself on the job with notice of termination resulted in effectively (me allowing) the burning of the place to the ground. I couldn’t give a hoot about that place after I knew I was going to be fired and turned a blind eye to all of the shennanigans that ensued.

How does this article belong here? Well, I was just thinking about how Chris Dodd and Joe Courtney must feel right about now.

Will the cops get the roaches?

Incredibly, somehow or another, and despite conventional wisdom, the good People of Massachusetts stopped the Socialism Express dead in its tracks tonight. This wasn’t a Brown win, it was a Coakley loss…it was an Obama loss.

Why, how and why now? It was health care reform legislation folks.

In the bluest state ever, the voters have turned their back on Obama and one-party Socialist rule. I figured New Jersey and Virginia to be flukes. Nah, they were just early indicators. The Democrats in Massachusetts knew very well that if they let this one get away, health care reform (in its current form) was dead. They let it go. Next on the endangered list: Cap’N Trade.

On behalf of your friends in Eastern Connecticut, Thanks Mass!

I sniped this off of Blue State Bluez

Have a look at Attorney General Blumenthal’s inability to take a stand.

Carla Howell and Michael Cloud lay out the case against Scott Brown -

WARNING to Tea Party Activists and Supporters, Town Hall Meeting Protesters, and Tax Cutters living in Massachusetts who are even considering voting for Scott Brown for US Senate January 19th

Career politician Scott Brown is an 11-year Big Government Republican state legislator who regularly and repeatedly voted FOR bigger state government budgets, voted FOR expanded and new Big Government programs, voted FOR tax increases, and voted AGAINST tax cuts.

Before you freak out, we do NOT want you to stay home – or vote for Martha Coakley. You have a far better choice – a choice that gives your vote 100 times its normal impact. What’s more, if you choose this option, you will dramatically strengthen the Tea Party Movement – and radically increase the number of TRUE tax cut and spending cut candidates on the ballot this November.

We’ll go into Big Government legislator Scott Brown’s sorry record of the last 11 years, and offer you a powerful way to make the political establishment listen to the Tea Party movement, but first:

Who are we? What have we done to earn your attention? Why should you take us seriously?

We’re Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, Tea Party activists and the 2 most prominent Tax Cut activists in Massachusetts for the last 10 years. We co-sponsored and ran Ballot Question 1 to END the state income tax in 2002 and 2008. We are running this year’s Ballot Initiative to Roll Back the Sales Tax from 6.25% to 3%.

We know every single real tax cutter in Massachusetts. We know every major phony and fake friend of taxpayers. Every slick, smooth-talking
chameleon who tries to blend in with tax cutters – while he VOTES FOR TAX HIKES, VOTES FOR PROPERTY TAX INCREASES (Prop. 2 ½ overrides), and CAMPAIGNS AGAINST and VOTES AGAINST A MAJOR TAX CUT.

Scott Brown is the worst fake tax-cutter in the Massachusetts legislature. And a fake ally is more dangerous than an open enemy.

“By their fruits shall ye know them,” counsels the Scriptures. “Actions speak louder than words,” says the proverb. And, correcting Emerson, “What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear a word you say.”

We must judge Scott Brown on his political actions during the last 11 years.

Fact: Election Eve, Monday, November 3rd, 2008: Scott Brown went on WTKK RADIO and urged voters to VOTE AGAINST Ballot Question 1, to END the Massachusetts state income tax. Scott Brown allied himself with the National and state Teachers Unions and SEIU (the government employees union that often works with ACORN) – against the taxpayers of Massachusetts.

Fact: Scott Brown has been a state legislator for the last 11 years, but we can’t find a single tax cut bill authored, sponsored, or introduced by him that would cut as little as 5% of state government revenue.

Fact: Scott Brown has been a state legislator for the last 11 years, but we can’t find even one spending cut bill authored, sponsored, or introduced by him that would cut as little as 5% of total state government spending.

Fact: Scott Brown has been a state legislator for the last 11 years, but we can’t find a single waste reduction bill authored, sponsored, or introduced by him that would cut waste as little as 5% of total spending. Polling shows that Massachusetts voters estimate that 41% of their taxes are wasted, but Scott Brown can’t even find 5% government waste.

Fact: The biggest tax and spending issue facing Massachusetts this year is our ballot initiative to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. Yet we cannot find a single news account or mention at Scott Brown’s legislative or campaign web sites where he takes a stand on this issue. He refuses to publicly endorse or campaign for our ballot initiative to roll back the sales tax — even though it would give Massachusetts families 32,929 new private sector jobs.

Fact: Scott Brown proudly proclaims that he was a key part of the team that designed RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care reform bill endorsed and backed by Senator Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown helped write, voted for, and endorses the bill provision that forces all Massachusetts workers to buy medical insurance – or pay a penalty tax. (Remember when Bill Clinton swore that oral sex from Monica Lewinsky wasn’t sex? Scott Brown, a lawyer, swears that this mandatory fee paid to the government is NOT a tax! )

And now, Scott Brown’s provision requiring everyone to buy medical insurance – or pay a mandatory penalty tax – is a key part of the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid-Barack Obama Health Care Reform Bill.

Scott Brown campaigns against everything the Tea Party Movement represents. Brown opposes and votes against as little as a 5% tax cut. He opposes and votes against cutting government spending or waste by even 5%. He designed and voted for a key part of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Health Care bill now being voted on in Washington.

Right now, the mainstream Republican Party loyalists are desperately trying to find even tiny differences between career Republican politician Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley.

The “Republican Party Right-or-Wrong” Partisans are trying to scare and stampede you and us – Tea Party activists, Town Hall Meeting protesters, and tax cutters -into closing our eyes, holding our noses and voting for Brown – out of fear that the alternative is even worse.

They are wrong. And we’ll tell you why.

You have a radically better choice. A choice that will advance the Tea Party Cause. A choice that will give us REAL Tea Party candidates and allies in November.

To Be Continued…..

Part II Warning to Tea Party Activists: Republicans Concede We’re Right

Part 2 Warning to Tea Party Activists:

Massachusetts Republicans Concede that U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown Repeatedly Voted for NEW Big Government Programs, INCREASED SPENDING FOR Big Government Programs, and FOR Higher and Higher yearly Massachusetts state Government Spending during his 11 years in the legislature.

by Carla Howell and Michael Cloud
Thursday, January 14, 2010

When we sent out Part 1 of this Warning to our fellow Tea Party Protesters, we expected lively responses from our fellow Tea Party Activists and our small government subscribers.

We got it. Everything from agreement and “Well, who should we vote for then?” to courteous disagreement. Thoughtful insights. Expressions of support for our alternative. We hope to address the issues and concerns raised in a number of emails in this and future messages we send out.

But we also got a flurry of hostile and vicious emails that surprised us: littered with profanity, name calling, ad hominems, and groundless accusations. Most of it from self-identified Republican Party members. 81 of them unsubscribed to this newsletter.

Finally, some very strange things happened: we got numerous emails from Massachusetts voters, mostly Republicans, who conceded that Part I of this message tells the unvarnished truth about Scott Brown’s 11-year legislative voting record.

“Yes, everything that you have said about Brown is true, but..” wrote Susan.

“I agree that Scott Brown is a Big Government Republican, but…,” wrote several.

“I don’t take issue with what you’ve said about Brown…He is not a small government candidate, but…,” wrote several.

Among those who emailed us, person after person agreed that, throughout his 11-year state legislative career, Scott Brown has repeatedly voted for higher government spending, bigger government, and higher taxes. “But….”

After they agreed that we’re right about Scott Brown and his sorry, Big Government legislative record, these people added “But…I’m voting for him anyway.”

Several people said, “I DON’T CARE whether you’re right! I DON’T CARE what the facts are! I DON’T CARE that Scott Brown votes for bigger and bigger government, for higher and higher spending and taxes! We’ve got to beat the Democrats – no matter what.”

Many Readers Wanted More Facts on Big Government Republican Scott Brown’s 11-year Legislative Record.

How shocked would you be to find out that, in 2008, Republican state senator Scott Brown voted for a Northeastern states CAP-AND-TRADE law?

Scott Brown joined the Democrats and passed legislation requiring Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in a cap-and-trade pact among Northeastern states requiring power plants to reduce emissions or to buy credits from cleaner industries.

“Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine,” Brown said in a news release in 2008. “Passing this legislation is an important step . . . towards improving our environment.”

Now Brown says he’s against it. In the tradition of John Kerry, Scott Brown might say,
“I voted for CAP-AND-TRADE LAWS before I planned to vote against it.”

Globe article 1-10-2010

+++

How stunned would you be to hear that Scott Brown said, “I believe that every American is entitled to health care”? He said this on Sean Hannity on FOX and during the US Senate debates broadcast on radio and TV.

He is part of the single-payer, universal medical care faction that is moving us toward a government-managed, tax-funded government medical care monopoly. Scott Brown says medical care is a government-granted right of every American.

Entitled to a doctor’s labor? Entitled to a hospital room? Entitled to prescription drugs? At whose expense? Guaranteed by whom? And remember the Forgotten Men and Women who are obligated by government, compelled by law to shoulder the costs of this medical care entitlement.

+++

Scott Brown brags about his vital role in designing, writing, and passing RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

How astonished would you be to learn that Scott Brown pledges to stop ObamaCare – so he can install a federally-run and managed RomneyCare to the United States of America? He’s said this during more than a half dozen national media interviews. And during the debates.

Before you cheer, take a page out of Dr. Phil’s book and ask, “How’s RomneyCare working out for you, Massachusetts?”

“Bay State health insurance premiums highest in country” answers the headline in the Boston Globe (8-22-09).

Between 2003 and 2008, the average Massachusetts family’s health care insurance premium rose from $9,867 to $13,788. A 40% increase! 21% higher increase than the national average.

This is exactly what US Senator Scott Brown will try to inflict on the other 49 states. Don’t let him do to America what he’s done to the men and women of Massachusetts.

+++

How surprised would you be if the Boston Globe printed an article tomorrow telling you that Scott Brown VOTED WITH the Massachusetts Teachers Unions over 94% of the time?

+++

FINALLY, how flabbergasted would you be if WGBH-TV (the Boston PBS affiliate) revealed that Scott Brown VOTED WITH the Democratic Majority in the legislature over 91% of the time?

+++

Can you see why we spoke up – and shared these prickly facts with you?

Why we want you to be able to make an informed choice on Special Election Day, January 19th?

Remember, we do NOT want you to stay home on Election Day. We do NOT want you to vote for the other Big Government candidate, Martha Coakley. Tomorrow, we’ll show you a choice that will give your vote 100 times the impact – and will REALLY dramatically advance the Tea Party cause this November…and beyond.

Tomorrow, the conclusion of this controversial and vital message….

Please send this to every Tea Party blog or web site, every Town Hall Meeting blog or web site, every tax cutter blog or web site, and please share it with your friends in Massachusetts. You may hold the fate of the Tea Party movement in your hands.

“A Vote for Ross Perot for President is a Vote for Bill Clinton,” said the 1992 Republican whisper campaign and robo-phone calls (launched by Bush (Sr.) Presidential Campaign operatives in 1992.) 
 
“A vote for Ron Paul for President is a vote for Barack Obama,” said the 2008 Republican emails and robo-calls (against Ron Paul’s 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Campaign.)
 
“A vote for Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate is a vote for Democrat Martha Coakley,” say the 2010 Republican emails and robo-calls (against Independent Tea Party Candidate Joe Kennedy’s Campaign for the vacant Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat. This Joe Kennedy is NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the Kennedy clan. And his politics are the diametric opposite.)
 
 
Which 1992 Presidential vote had a bigger, longer-lasting, positive impact on America: a  vote for “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” George Bush (Sr.) OR a vote for Ross Perot?
 
Which 2008 Presidential vote will produce a bigger, longer-lasting, positive effect on America: a vote for small government Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul OR a vote for John McCain?
 
Which 2010 U.S. Senate Special Election vote will produce a bigger, longer-lasting positive effect on America: a vote for Big Government, high tax Republican Scott Brown OR a vote for small government Tea Party candidate Joe Kennedy?
 
Ross Perot’s 1992 Presidential Campaign demanded an END to deficit spending – and for fresh ideas, fresh faces in government. Results? It forced the Democrats and Republicans to give us almost 10 years of balanced budgets. It set in motion independent activists who gave us the 1994 Republican Revolution.
 
Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential Campaign attracted and mobilized hundreds of thousands of young Americans who understand and love the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — seek to roll back and reduce today’s Big Government. In fact, many of these patriots helped build the Tea Party Movement. This is just the beginning.
 
Joe Kennedy’s 2010 small government Tea Party campaign for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts may well set in motion a positive, America-building avalanche this year – with an even bigger impact in 2012 and beyond.
 
Why will voting for Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate this January 19th give your vote 100 times the impact of voting for Big Government Republican Scott Brown?

First, there are 435 U.S. Congressional seats PLUS 36 U.S. Senate seats up for Election this November 2nd.  
 
If the Republican Establishment can manipulate Tea Party Protesters, Town Hall Meeting Activists, Tax Cutters, and small government voters in Massachusetts into voting for Big Government Republican Scott Brown this January 19th – then they will field and support more Big Government Scott Brown candidates for the 2010 Elections. 
 
Only one thing can stop the Republican Establishment from filling the 2010 ballot with Big Government Republicans: your vote for Joe Kennedy. And ours. And those of 10,000 to 25,000 of our fellow small government, tax cutting, Tea Party voters.
 
Only one thing will push the Republican Establishment into fielding and supporting real small government candidates this year, in 2010: your vote for Joe Kennedy. And ours. And those of 10,000 to 25,000 pro-Constitution, small government voters. 
 
What’s more, Tea Party Protesters and supporters all across America are watching this Special Election for U.S. Senate. The higher the vote total for Tea Party U.S. Senate Candidate Joe Kennedy, the better the odds that more Tea Party Protesters will throw their hats in the ring for U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate this year.  Your vote for Joe Kennedy may well inspire and activate thousands of Tea Party Movement members.
 
Have you read or heard the savage attacks, insults, arguments, fear tactics, false charges, half truths, and lies about Joe Kennedy? 
 
Did you know that this is exactly what the Big Government Republican Establishment said about and did to Republican U.S. Congressman  Ron Paul when he ran for President in 2008?
 
Did you know that this is what the Big Government Republican Establishment did to Ross Perot when he ran for President in 1992?
 
Don’t let them get away with the con. Vote Joe Kennedy.
 
Ross Perot lost the 1992 Election, but the people who voted for him CAUSED the Democrats and Republicans to balance the federal budget for a decade.
 
Ross Perot’s 1992 voters precipitated the 1994 Republican Revolution.
 
Dr. Ron Paul lost the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, but, paraphrasing  the words of Obe-Wan Kenobe to Darth Vader, “If you strike me down, my supporters and small government cause shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.” And that IS happening now.
 
Voting for Ron Paul for President was an INVESTMENT in the Constitution and small government that keeps paying off. A vote we will NEVER regret.
 
Joe Kennedy is the ONLY small government candidate running for this open U.S. Senate Seat.
 
Joe Kennedy is the ONLY candidate in this race who will vote for dramatically lower federal spending, lower taxes, and a smaller federal government than we have today. Who will vote against ALL government bailouts of businesses. Against ALL government stimulus packages. Against ALL unbalanced budgets.

Voting Joe Kennedy is the ONLY way you can get more tax cutting, spending cutting, small government candidates for the 434 Congressional districts which do NOT have their own Ron Paul. And for the 35 U.S. Senate Seats up for grabs which do NOT have their own Rand Paul.

Voting for Joe Kennedy may be the only way to prevent the unexpected betrayal: Republican ObamaCare.  Can’t believe it could happen? Look at
Scott Brown’s proud Massachusetts political love child: RomneyCare. Imagine U.S. Senator Scott Brown proudly taking it federal. ObamaRomaCare.
 
Your vote for Joe Kennedy may be the vote that makes the difference. Your vote may be the Tipping Point vote that sets in motion more and more Tea Party candidates, more and more Ron Paul candidates, more and more small government candidates.      
For 2010. And for 2012. 
 
To our fellow Tea Party Protesters, Town Hall Meeting activists, Tax Cutters, our fellow Ron Paul supporters, and all who are committed to small government:
 
We endorse Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate this January 19th.
 
Join us and thousands of others – and vote Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate(MA) this January 19th.
 
With your vote, small government is possible,

Tonight, the 2nd District Tea Party Patriots hosted all non Dem congressional 2010 candidates to debate issues and confer (aka meet & greet) with the public.  I was inspired and encouraged by the process.  More to share tomorrow plus pictures.

 

There has been a lot of rumor about this project as of late.  I’m posting what I have here to start the discussion.

Free Norwich:  As the candidate with the most military experience, and serving on the Homeland Security Committee, do you agree with the President setting a time-line for pulling out of Afghanistan in 2012?

Rob Simmons:  No, I don’t.  I think that whenever you are engaged in a war, and of course our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are in a war–it’s a different kind of war from World War II, Korea or Vietnam, where I fought–but when you’re in a war, the Commander-in-Chief should not set a specific deadline for accomplishment of the mission and publicize it.  That’s just not a good idea.  It creates opportunities for our enemies, because now they can plan on that date being a critical date and they can plan around it for some particularly violent activity and it also tells them that our commitment is limited.  It’s not good to send your enemy those signals.  And then think about the soldiers in the field and their families, because if I was over there, or my son was over there, I’d be concerned that the President, the Commander-in-Chief  has simply said, your son’s sacrifice, or your sacrifice is only good to buy us a year and a half.  That’s about it.  We’re not making a long-term commitment to victory in any way, and I think that’s demoralizing and bad public policy.

FN:  Do you think it’s politically motivated?  The date?

RS:  Absolutely, it’s politically motivated!  You didn’t see Franklin Roosevelt telling Dwight Eisenhower 30 days after the D-Day landing, if you’re not successful, leave France.  You didn’t see Truman tell MacArthur in Korea if you’re not successful in 60 or 90 days or a year, we’re going to pull the plug on the Korean peninsula.  So it has to be political pressure from the left that’s forcing the president to put a deadline out there, and I just think that’s a mistake.  When you are Commander in chief, you’ve got to be strong, you’ve got to stand above the political crowd and make decisions that are best for this country and for the troops and for their families.

FN:  There’s talk of a second stimulus package to the tune of about $200 billion.  If you were in the Senate today, could you vote for that?

RS:  Probably not.  I wouldn’t have voted for the first stimulus package, I wouldn’t have voted for the TARP bill and I wouldn’t vote for a second stimulus, if it’s anything at all like the first one.  I gather it’s got earmarks in it and the whole deal.  This is disgraceful.  You don’t stimulate the economy by allocating large massive amounts of government funds and passing them from the federal government to the state government or from the State government to the local government.  That may help a particular state balance it’s budget, but it doesn’t stimulate the economy.  Connecticut is a perfect example of that. We got abut 3 billion, 3.2 billion in stimulus out of the January bill and 1.2 billion was for Medicaid.  Well Medicaid is a government program so that money supports a government program, which relieves Connecticut’s budget problems, but it doesn’t stimulate the economy.   And then secondly, 800 million or so, I believe, was for education, that is federal government, state government, and local government.  How does that stimulate the economy?  It doesn’t.  When you want to stimulate the economy you need to have structured tax cuts on small business for example which is what we did in 2003.  It allowed small business to expense up to $100,000 in new equipment purchases and that stimulates the economy and increases productivity and it works.  Today you talk to small business about what did you get under the stimulus, and the answer is 100% zero, zilch, nothing.  They haven’t got anything.  And so, I would say no more stimulus.  Let’s really focus on our economic problems, let’s cut the spending, let’s reduce the deficit, and let’s get off the backs of small business.

FN:  How do you propose we create jobs in this country?

RS:  Just by what I just said.  You create jobs by getting the government off the back of the job creators.  Who are the job creators?  Well, you know the job creators are not necessarily big banks, big financial institutions, big corporate entities.  Here in the State of Connecticut, 53 percent of all business are 4 or less employees, 73 percent of all businesses are nine or less employees.  Nationally,  96% of all business are 20 or less employees.  So, it’s really small business where the jobs are created and that’s where the focus has to be.  It has not.  It has to be there.

FN:  You’ve taken some heat for your position on cap and trade – the change in your position on cap and trade.  Why are you now against that legislation?

RS:  I co-sponsored a cap and trade bill a long time ago when I was a member of the House of Representatives.  Since that time, I’ve had a unique experience.  I was appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature to be the Business Advocate for the State of Connecticut.  For 22 months, I traveled the state and went to over 400 businesses, one a day, every day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks of the year.  And I got an education.  I got an education on taxes.  I got an education on red tape and regulation.  But I also got an education on energy costs, which goes to the issue of cap and trade, and I got an education on the costs of labor which goes to the issue of card check.  And you know, I’m a guy that learns from my experiences.  The experience of being a business advocate was a really important learning experience, and I learned from it.  Based on that experience I would not support that legislation.

FN:  Health care is on everyone’s mind these days, and although the vote may come up one way or another before you get in the Senate, you are one of the few public figures that supported the Tea Party movement.  What can be done to stop this bill before the next election?

RS:  Well I think the Tea Party movement, which is a group of citizens–I don’t like it when people criticize the Tea Party folks, I don’t like it because I’ve been to some Tea Parties myself, and I know who they are.  They’re neighbors, they’re citizens who have a right to speak out, they’re people who are concerned about the direction their country is going in, they are people that are worried about unemployment, they’re worried about the high cost of living.  They are worried about a whole range of issues that affect them directly.  And I think they have a right to speak out, whether it’s Norwich or New Haven or Hartford, that’s where I’ve been to the movements, to listen to people speak and to speak myself.  And you know, the problem with the Health Care legislation is they’re going to cut Medicare by half a billion–ah half a trillion dollars, which means less money for a program that’s already not funded adequately to meet the cost of the health care that its provided.  It doesn’t make any sense.  They’re moving towards a government option, a government takeover.   I don’t think that makes sense.  I’ll tell you why.  I’m a veteran.  You’d think I would be eligible for Veteran’s Health Care, but in fact I’m not.  The VA system (which is a good system in and of itself) only handles about 6 million of 22 million veterans.  So whenever the government is involved, it’s more expensive, it’s more red tape, it’s less access to services.  There’s a limited formulary .  It’s just not a good system.  I think what we really need to do is get some of the costs out of our health care system  – and that goes to Tort reform -reducing the cost of frivolous lawsuits, allowing competition across state lines for the access of health insurance.  For example, I buy my health insurance here in Connecticut.  I can’t buy it anywhere else.  And yet I buy my car insurance in Texas.  Why shouldn’t I be able to get my health insurance from an out-of-state company and reduce costs through competition.  And there’s just a variety of other proposals that we can do to reduce the cost of health care, which is the real problem.

FN:  It’s interesting because it keeps coming up– Tort Reform, increased competition. Why haven’t those ideas been presented in any sort of legislation that they’re talking about–it seems that everyone is talking about those things needing to be done, but it does not seem as though…..

RS:  They have.  In fact, I voted for some of those bills when I was in the House of Representatives.  I co-sponsored and supported them in the House of Representatives.  Health savings accounts.  Medical savings accounts these sorts of things were all supported.  Association health plans I supported.  Democrats opposed them because they’re reasonable proposals that get in the way of National Health Care.  Ideologically Democrats want national health care.  They want the Government to run the whole ball of wax.  And so they will fight any reasonable proposal that might work against their plan to have government health care.

FN:  The President of the Dallas Fed back in 2008 said that we had 99 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates with Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  How do we resolve those issues?

RS:  Well you have to do it one step at a time and certainly you don’t solve the issue of mandates by adding more.  And what you see coming out of Washington DC today of course is more mandates, more taxes on those people that have good health care plans, what they call Cadillac plans.  They call them Cadillac plans so you think somehow the person is rich   If you’re a submarine builder down at Electric Boat, if you’re building jet engines for Pratt and Whitney, if you’re over at Sikorsky producing helicopters, these types of high-tech products, you probably have a good health care plan–call it a Cadillac plan, but the fact of the matter is we don’t need to put taxes on those plans, we don’t need to take away from our skilled workers a benefit that they’ve earned over the years.  We don’t need to put new taxes on small business and tell them if they don’t cover health care for their employees, that they’re going to have to pay some kind of tax or premium.  We don’t need to be punishing people over this issue–we need to be providing incentives, we need to reduce the costs of the services that are provided.  Generally speaking, the public plans: Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care, military health care, generally seeking costs more than what is offered in the private sector.  So we need to be more efficient.  We need to get the corruption and the false claims out of these programs too.  The government has not done a good job of that.  False claims in medicare are very substantial.

FN:  Going back to your time as a business advocate, as the State’s first and only business advocate, what needs to be done in the State of Connecticut to attract more business?

RS:  Well first and foremost, the Connecticut General Assembly needs to balance the budget and get more business friendly.  One of the reasons the Democratic legislators introduced an amendment to get rid of the Business Advocate job and they did it secretly, so nobody would know about it (FN: right) including me–one of the reasons they did it was because I kept speaking out for free enterprise and small business and I discovered from Site Finder magazine, this is an American site-finding organization that publishes a magazine that helps business locate and it gives you the score — if you locate to Connecticut, what’s good, what’s bad.  And the interesting thing is that Site Finder lists the various legislatures–those that are pro-business and those that are anti-business.  Connecticut ranks 50th in the nation that is anti-business.  Our legislature is ranked the worst legislature in the nation when it comes to being business friendly.  We have to start right there.  Well they didn’t like it when I brought that to their attention, and they didn’t like it when I testified to that effect in front of  the Commerce Committee, but rather than address the issue that our Connecticut General Assembly is the worst in the nation, rather than address that, they decided to get rid of me because I said it.  That’s where we’re at.  Today.  Today is a good example, the legislature will come in, the Democrats will call the legislature in to try to fix the unbalanced budget that we have up there, it’s hundreds of millions of dollars out of balance–they’re going to come, they’re going to say a few things and leave.  They’re going to do nothing.  And I tell you what, the people of the State of Connecticut should be outraged.  They should throw the bums out next year, and I hope they do.

FN:  You were one of the ones caught up in all the budget cuts.  They don’t seem to be cutting in the right areas, at the right times.  It’s going to be an expensive campaign – primary and the general election – how’s the fund-raising?

RS:  We’re doing surprisingly well for some fund raising – if there is anyone listening that wants to help out, go on our web-page at: joinrobsimmons.com.  We have people that have given us $5 and we have people that have given us $5,000.  So it’s very gratifying.  In the first quarter, we raised more money than any challenger, out of office challenger,  in state history .  Second quarter we actually beat Senator Dodd.  He raised over $900,000.  We raised $970,000.  That’s unheard of.  But that shows that people are upset.  And what also shows that people are upset is that we have over 10,000 donors.  I know there’s some people in this race who can write their own checks for a ton of money, I know that, but you know the thing I really value is the citizen here in Connecticut that writes a check or goes on-line and makes a contribution, $15, $20, $25–those dollars add up.  Those dollars really make a difference.  We’ve raised literally several millions of dollars from people who have just, lots and lots of people who given a small amount, the best they can afford and we really appreciate it.  Especially now at Christmas and Hannakuh when people are spending money on their families and on gifts, just to throw 25 bucks into the web page is a beautiful thing and we love it.  So, Join Rob Simmons dot com!

FN:  One last question.  Tell me about life as a private in the army.

RS:  Life as a private in the army.  I was drafted as you know, and when I got my draft notice I had to decide am I going to get drafted or am I going to enlist.  So, having gotten my draft notice, I enlisted as a private, I went to Fort Dix, New Jersey and when I got my first paycheck, I’ll never forget it, it wasn’t a check–it was cash money counted out of a strong box, sixty eight dollars and change for a month.  $68 a month as a private in the army.  I kind of made some grumbling remarks to the sargeant that was there. He said, hey Private Simmons get over here – what are you complaining about, $68 a month?  We give you food, we give you clothing, we give you housing, we give you transportation, heck $68 that’s too much – we shouldn’t give you anything for the joy of being in the US Army!. Give me twenty pushups.  So I had to get down and do my push-ups.  But you know, seriously, we are blessed in this coutnry to have young men and women who are willing to volunteer–because we have a volunteer force now–to serve our country, to put their lives on the line for our freedom and democracy.  And what I say to those wonderful men and women who are serving us around the country and around the world:  They’re fighting for freedom.  They’re fighting for democracy. And my message to Chris Dodd and the gang down in Washington, DC is–Don’t take our freedom away by over-taxing us.  Don’t take our freedom away by passing laws that don’t let us live lives as free people.  We have inherited the freedom and the democracy of this country from generations of American who have stood up to fight for it and right now we have to fight for it in the Tea Parties, we have to fight for in the CT General Assembly and we have to fight for it in Washington DC.  Let’s not give up on freedom .  Let’s fight for it just like our wonderful men and women in uniform are fighting for it.

FN:  Thank you for your time, Representative Simmons.  It’s been very informative, and we appreciate your comments.