Author: publius911

The Connecticut Consumer Counsel, who is the public advocate for energy, natural gas, water and telecommunications, wrote on 2/17 in the Hartford Courant “End the third-party residential electric supply market”. Elin Swanson Katz said, “There are simply too many suppliers, too many marketing tricks and too much money to be made.”

There are six companies offering twenty three (23) different rate programs. Currently, 14 rates per kilowatt hour posted are lower than the “standard” rate. Connecticut has the fifth highest electric rates in the country. Because they have created a problem (poor electrical infrastructure), they tried a band-aid fix, (open up electricity delivery to competition). Now they find that SOME people may be paying more for their electrical service. This Consumer Counsel, who is paid nearly $170,000 a year in compensation, would rather spread the pain of some to the whole. Having created the lowest common denominator through other failed programs and policies, they choose to lower everybody to that standard. Rather than raise the standard and help all people achieve it, Democrats regularly choose to lower the standard and force some to the bottom.

Here is more information.

The Democrat Way

The Connecticut Consumer Counsel who is the public advocate for energy natural gas, water and telecommunications wrote on 2/17 in the Hartford Courant to “End the third-party residential electric supply market”. Elin Swanson Katz said, “There are simply too many suppliers, too many marketing tricks and too much money to be made.” Our esteemed Senator Blumenthal and AARP agree. She says that the “vast majority” of consumers who go with these third party providers end up losing money. No numbers were provided. She did say there are “thousands” of complaints about high pressure sales pitches at the door and over the phone. She claims people who use these vendors lose an estimated $200 million each year.

I just went to the web site the office of the Consumer Counsel refers you to if you want to compare rates. (https://www.energizect.com/compare-energy-suppliers) There are 6 companies offering 23 different rate programs. Currently, 14 rates per kilowatt hour posted are lower than the “standard” rate from Eversource. If people are losing $200 million, you have to wonder why?

What is really happening is that Democrats in Connecticut have fouled up the infrastructure so bad that they have to hide their mistakes. Currently, Connecticut has the fifth highest electric rates in the country. It is true that some people are paying more than they should. A simple shopping experience on the web will yield a lower than standard rate. We regularly shop, as we do with most things like insurance, cell phone service, cable and the internet, and choose the lowest rate at the time. Switching electrical plans is virtually painless.

This is another example of how Democrats see the world. Because they have created a problem (poor electrical infrastructure) they tried a band aid fix, (open up electricity delivery to competition), they now find that SOME people may be paying more for their electrical service. This does not sit well with their view of the world. Therefore the fix is make SOME people pay more so those who don’t stay on top of their bills, or are elderly and get confused easily, and those that can’t speak English, can pay the only rate available even though it is higher. (All these reasons were cited by a person working in the Counsel’s office.)

This Consumer Counsel, who is paid nearly $170,000 a year in compensation, would rather spread the pain of some to the whole. Instead of spending our taxpayer dollars educating the public on how to get the best plan, they choose to punish those who take advantage of the competition that has brought rates down. Having created the lowest common denominator through other failed programs and policies; they choose to lower everybody to that standard. Rather than raise the standard and help all people achieve it, Democrats regularly choose to lower the standard and force some to the bottom.

I was born into a Democrat household. My father was a truck driving teamster who later became a patronage state worker and Democrat precinct man. I was a Young Democrat and attended both state and national conventions into my 20’s. So how is that I am today a self-labeled “staunch conservative”? Is it, as my father said, because I have a few bucks in my pocket?

I studied international political and comparative economic systems in college in the 70’s. One of my economic professors was a communist. We had many sessions both in and out of the classroom where we would discuss the worth of communism and capitalism. He was of the mindset that ordinary people are incapable of the delivering goods and services in the most efficient manner. I countered that human nature insists that no person(s) controls the life of another human and that freedom is at the heart of capitalism. As I write this, I still find that capitalism is all about freedom and little to do about efficiency.

While the new waves of “progressives” harbor thoughts of reining in individual freedom in return for some utopian outcome, they will learn that the human spirit dries up when throttled. Efforts to tell citizens of the freest country the world has ever known, that you MUST (fill in the blank) will eventually be met with resistance of the kind seen in previous violent actions. We humans thrive on self-worth yet easily fall prey to the path of least resistance. Getting handouts like “free income” devalue the person and will only lead to self-loathing. The individual will become a possession of the state.

I am a conservative because I want to fail on my own.  I want the euphoria of having made my way through a struggle to a successful outcome. I need to have challenges that give me the opportunity to excel. That is what being a human is all about. Long before there were government organizations, there were individuals who made their way. They may have been very inefficient but they survived. I too can survive on my own, thank you very much. So I am a conservative and I believe that the less a government governs, the better off I am.

Remember that when Democrats cry foul over the deficit, they are the ones that put in place the Federal student loan program. A program that now carries $1,500,000,000,000 of debt on its books. (Just another well run government program in a long line of fiscal fiascos.) This now represents about another 5% of our current national debt and is soon to be “forgiven” if Democrats have their way, damn the deficit!

400,000 people are pouring over our southern border, 30,000 a month at a time. They are wreaking havoc on our law enforcement, judicial system, hospitals and schools. The cost of dealing with this onslaught is estimated to be $1,500,000,000 a year and growing. An invasion of our country with 400,000 people every year, had they been armed, would have been a war.

In a $3,800,000,000,000 annual budget, spending $5,700,000,000 (.06%) to slow down the invasion seemed reasonable. If it takes the President using a Congressional law (1979 National Emergency Act) to get it done, so be it.

More than half of Americans favor Medicare for All according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That percentage drops off when people hear more about the plan. It drops to 37% when they hear it requires higher taxes or eliminates private insurance. You really didn’t get that? Unfortunately, these people vote.

So much for our educational system. It’s time we institute a civics lesson before you get your ballot if this is the level of understanding about basic economics. No wonder “free” sounds so good to these people.

Let the howling from the left begin.

2-11-19

The Noose is Getting Tighter

Sal Alinsky said in his progressive bible, “Rules for Radicals”, that the end justifies the means and that morality is situational. Current day Democrats have fully embraced these precepts and are unabashed in applying them to today’s issues. With each opportunity to move the country toward socialism, they jump on it. Seeing the winds blowing further to the left only inspire them to blow harder. As we move further and faster to the left, it becomes harder to temper the movement. Any calls for more moderate policies are made to appear further from what the left is advocating and easier for them to call out as “radical”. The issues now in the forefront of this growing movement to the left are evident; the reins of control are quickly being consolidated.

It is apparent that the left is seizing upon the immigration issue in order to pack the country with real and potential voters who will be dependent upon them. Currently there are some 20 million illegal immigrants in this country with several hundred thousand more entering each year. The numbers are not lost on the Democrats and with their vast experience in creating dependent populations (African-Americans), they see the future to perpetual power. Of course they must first convert them into voters.

Voter identification laws continue to be watered down. The obvious use of a valid ID for plane travel is seen as absurd when identifying valid voters. Even then, Democrats in some states have passed laws to allow anyone here legally or illegally, to get a driver’s license. So you have getting an ID made easier, and in some cases, voting without one easier and you have the makings of turning 20 million plus into enough votes to win any local, state and Federal election. Mind you, Democrats also scuttled the attempt to see if in fact there is voter fraud in our elections.

Why have Democrats switched from calling for a secured, walled southern border? Why do they fight any attempt to contain and reduce illegal immigration? Why was the effort to determine if there is voter fraud, quashed by Democrats? It is clear; they see their way to perpetual power in the large and growing illegal immigrants, primarily from South and Central America, flooding our country. This means to an end has them abandoning American values of individual freedom and adopting those of socialism. Promising “free” health care, education, income etc. is bankrupting the morals of the people they purport to care for. They will forsake African Americans in this revolving identity politics being played by them. They don’t care because it is power they crave and its power they will have. For them, morality is situational.

Yes, the noose is tightening and only a concerted effort by those on the outside of this cabal can help turn the tide. Curtailing illegal immigration is critical and dealing with those already here, as important. That is why we must enforce all our laws and rid ourselves of the criminals already among us. Changes to our immigration laws must include the ability to return those here illegally to outside our country without spending our limited resources holding and adjudicating their cases. We must secure the border to stop more illegals from coming in. We must resist efforts to bestow citizenship on those here illegally without due process. It belittles those who waited and followed our laws and cheapens being a US citizen. We must be extra vigilant to assure only citizens vote in our elections. Absent our attention to these issues, we will suffer the dregs of socialism as the leftists gain and then consolidate their hold on our country.

How is it that we have politicians, using taxpayer money, negotiating compensation and working conditions with public employee labor unions? This reciprocal relationship has festered for decades putting both state and federal budgets into financial ruin. Despite recent rulings, unions continue to cement their hold on government through both its contract negotiations and political work. That we would allow politicians the use our money to boost the well-being of a block of voters is ludicrous on its face. Is it no wonder that public employment has mushroomed? The once low paying but secure local, state, and federal jobs are now high paying, “never get laid off or fired” jobs with benefits that can’t be touched in the private sector.

The most recent attempt to thwart any further declines in union membership in Connecticut is from Democratic Legislators, Representative Mike D’Agostino and Robyn Porter, who is a member of the Office of Professional Employees International Union. Their proposed legislation says requests to stop payroll deductions for Union dues must go the Union versus to the payer, the state. Presumably, the Union can then confront the scab and intimidate them into rescinding the request. It also says that the Union must be given time in new employee orientation to present the “benefits” of being a Union member. Mind you, attempts to get time for employers at union meetings were previously legislated out.

These types of laws are typical in the states where Democrats have been in power for decades. The usual suspects are identified by their financial distress due to overly generous pension and health benefits given to public employees. The list includes (but not limited to) the aforementioned Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey. These states are perennially the lowest three in debt, poor business climate and a host of other negative financial measures. Why do they continue their slide into ruin? With a large part of the electorate beholden to them, (public employees), politicians need only continue to provide excellent compensation and benefits through its Union contract negotiations. Those votes keep them in office. Of course to pay for the outrageous compensation and benefits, they must raise taxes; but then, it’s not their money! All three states are seeing net out migration but refuse to change their ways.

Is it any wonder why Union members typically vote Democrat? Only recently was it possible for a Union member to not be forced to contribute to the Unions’ political funds. Unions are staunch financers of Democratic candidates and in this “one hand washes the other hand” relationship; the taxpayer gets tossed like a Caesar salad.  Much like minorities that count on their subsistence through welfare programs, public workers pin their survival on Democrats who negotiate the very terms of their compensation and working conditions. Is it any wonder that we have these financial crises?

If we are to allow collective bargaining for public employees, we must find a way to eliminate the circular relationship of providing overly generous compensation and working conditions in return for voting booth allegiance. New ways must be put in place to assure negotiations and their outcomes are based on realistic financial measures and not on what will it take to secure a vote. Perhaps a citizen’s review panel that has the power to decline final terms, is necessary to remove the reality or even appearance of impropriety in Union contract negotiations. Another idea may be to compare terms to publically available wage, salary and benefits data for the private sector and automatic adjustments made when there is an unacceptable variance, one way or the other. In any case, the circular relationship public employee Unions have with elected officials is drowning taxpayers and must be addressed.

At last count, there are eight formally announced Democrats running for the Presidency and a number of others with exploratory committees. Many of these people have designs on a health care system that replaces the current one; the most common labeled, “Medicare for All” (MFA). This concept was originally introduced by Democratic Socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, years ago and was summarily dismissed then.  But that was then and now the bandwagon needs another horse to pull it. I say let’s have a real discussion about the merits of MFA but in the context of its lofty goals versus the morass of details that would cloud the actual understanding necessary for voters to make up their minds.

Let’s start with where I think most, if not all, would agree.  No person in the USA should be denied urgent health care. I believe that if another human saw someone suffering poor health, they would be fine with addressing the situation. There may be exceptions, like when the situation was self-induced or the result of not properly addressing a prior illness or injury. But on the whole, no one wants to see a person suffer unduly. It’s important to establish this as a goal for, without it, we have no way of ever agreeing on what it is we are trying to solve. Assuming we want everyone to have access to health care, let’s examine the questions of how to deliver it taking into account our current systems.

Today, by law, anyone presenting themselves to a licensed hospital must be treated. Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. So today, we have in place a means to treat everyone in the US. That it is not the most efficient can easily be argued.

Also today, over 50% (~155m) of all persons in the US get private health insurance through their employer. Medicaid covers another 76 million and Medicare, 55 million persons. Add Obamacare’s 11 million and, out of a population of 330 million, 90% of the population has health insurance of some form. (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/number-of-people-with-health-insurance-via-jobs-remained-steady-with-obamacare.html) Again, how well the current insurance schemes work is a big part of the debate.

Most opponents of MFA use the argument that “it’s too expensive”. Proponents argue, we already spend the money through the current system so it is just another way of delivering it. Will more people access health care when there is no question about payment? Will it lead to healthier lifestyles and preventative medicine that will eventually lead to lower costs? Other issues include rationing of care and when is care no longer provided at end-of-life. There are long term examples of government provided healthcare in other countries with fact based outcomes that can be used to test both these questions. The most difficult question to answer is the effect a government controlled health care system has on personal freedom. How do citizens reconcile the American value of independence and self-reliance with the state controlling your very health?

Candidates who talk in platitudes about MFA or other state sponsored health care, need to be held to account on their proposals. It is incumbent upon the media and the American people to pin down the answers to these and any other critical questions before we overturn our current system. Before we make our choice on a government provided health care system, the concept must be fully debated and understood by voters. Our very freedom to choose is at the heart of the debate.

I watch portions of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, CNN’s “New Day” along with “Fox and Friends” most mornings. I know people who watch only one of the three exclusively. Some even tape the program so they can watch it again and share content with others. What I find very interesting is how the hosts identify what is being presented and their use of hypotheticals in how they present their content.

“Breaking News” is now the standard for both Fox and CNN to grab your attention. Most times there is nothing “breaking” about it other than a way to entice you to watch. It has lost its charm and I certainly don’t perk up at the banner and announcement anymore. What I do is ask myself is if in fact it is “news” or just another piece of opinion or analysis? Too often, especially on CNN and MSNBC, the lines between fact based reporting and opinion are obscure at best and non-existent at worse. The spread of opinion as fact that flows through those watching only confirms Nancy Pelosi’s excellent explanation of how falsehoods can become “truths” through constant and “professional” communication. (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4754168/pelosi-explaining-smear-tactics).

Most alarming for me is the use of hypothetical adjectives. “If it’s true…” can be followed by the most outrageous statement and spread into the maelstrom of information networks. It does no matter at that point if in fact it is true because someone somewhere is going to run with it. There are so many examples of wild swinging stories the latest of which is the encounter of a high school student with a drum beating man.

I find the use of hypotheticals is more pronounced on the left leaning stations. How many times did we hear that President Trump is “thinking about” or “possibly taking action” or “might consider” and tagging these conjectures with “creating a Constitutional crisis” to ramp up the reaction. He still hasn’t fired Mueller for Pete’s sake!

Unfortunately, consumers of these programs are the result of our deteriorated educational system. Critical thinking applied to information is not high on the list of skills being taught. In fact, I doubt if anyone in school over the past 30 years has even heard of Marshal McLuhan who prophetically said,

“Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication.”

How voters arrive at their decision in the ballot box is one of the most important issues of the day. So much has been said about “fake news”, and the censoring of social media to address it that we are not getting to the nub of the issue which is, the consumer must be vigilant in basing their decision on incontrovertible facts that they and they alone, form an opinion around. Failure to do so will doom our Democracy which is predicated on an informed electorate.

I grew up in the 60’s when “free love” abounded, aided by the pill and abortion on demand. I’m no prude, but have we gone a step too far in throwing sex in our face at every turn? How did we turn sex into a political statement?

This week Connecticut inaugurated its “Kid Governor”, 5^th grader, Ella Briggs. Ella, a ten year old, ran on a community issue of LGBTQ youth safety and was selected by fellow 5^th graders in a statewide election. Her platform has three planks; adoption of homeless LGBTQ youths, train teachers how to work with LGBTQ youths and create programs for LGBTQ youths and their allies. (http://ct.kidgovernor.org/ctkgella)

In looking back on my childhood and that of my children, I don’t recall having conversations about sexuality at that age. That we now have a ten year old presenting herself as a spokesperson on the topic leads me to believe that we may have turned sex and its accompanying issues of gender identification, definition of family and a host of other related topics into common fodder for our classrooms and media. For me, trying to explain to a fifth grader the difference between a man and a woman using the current radical views of the left, leaves me cold. When is a man a man if he doesn’t have male genitalia? Is a ten year old ready to make decisions about their own sexuality? Shouldn’t we be guiding them through these formative years without the stress of worrying about what they are?

Am I the only one who doesn’t care to hear about erectile dysfunction and Peyrones disease while I’m watching television with my daughter? In one sequence the other night, there were commercials for a testosterone drug, a Viagra substitute and “see your doctor” for a penis condition. Now, back to our regular programming! I remember cringing when feminine hygiene products were on TV.

I know you can’t put the Genie back in the bottle, but if I had a child in school today, I would make darn sure that I am the one directing their sex education. Gender bending and labeling is best left to someone who can start with facts and explain the role of sex, which includes the issues of love, commitment and procreation. Ella’s parents might teach her how her two dogs and cat are identified as male and female, and how they came to be, before jumping into the left’s expanding variations of sexuality.