Friday, October 20, 2006

Friday Night Open Forum

It's been a busy week for debates.

Who were the big winners and losers?

What else is going on?

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bill Hilsman, who talked Ned into making sure that this ad guy gets one of the largest commissions in the history of American politics

ctkeith said...

Schlesingers week.

I was at the Branford/Derby football game this evening helping introduce the best State Senator in Connecticut,Ed Meyer, to his constituents and the people from Derby were rightfully very proud of their former Mayors performance in the debates.

Shadow said...

Rell and DeStefano both lost to their own vortex of boredom, but Lieberman was the biggest debate loser of the week. Just when I think my opinion of him can't get any lower, it manages to with each debate. One thing was abundantly clear from watching this last debate: ANY of these four challengers (and probably a ton of other people from this state) would be better than Lieberman, who has the same answer to every question in every debate:

Q: "Why does ______ continue to be a problem?"

Lieberman: "We've worked hard on that, and we've made some progress, but we still have a lot of work to do."

He'll say it about anything; he probably said that to his mom in the morning when she asked him if he was getting out of bed as a child. I don't agree with Schlesinger on many issues, but I would gladly take him over Lieberman if Lamont and the other choices were unavailable.

On another note, Ferrucci and Knibbs added a lot of substance to the debate. There has been some (legitimate) criticism about the nervousness they displayed, but I think what matters is that they added a lot to the discussion, and intellectually speaking the debate benefited from their presence. I was especially impressed with the merits of many of Ferrucci's arguments, and his closing statement was outstanding, the only one to get a rousing round of applause from the audience.

As for winners, Schlesinger and Lamont were both on their game, and really took it home in their closing statements, which had the benefit of following Lieberman's closing statement and depriving him of the last word. It will be interesting what polls taken after this debate will say.

Anonymous said...

Ed Meyer---the best State Senator? Are you kidding me? The guy is a joke. Have you looked at him lately or heard him speak? I saw one of his debates/forums and he was awful...very incoherent and presented himself, well...let's just say it wasn't pretty!
The only reason he will win reelection is that the R candidate was just as bad and the R candidate (Hannan) has not been able to raise a dime of money for his campaign. In fact, Hannan's October Filing isn't up yet on the Sec. of State's campaign finance reports. Anyone know why?
But to say Meyer is the best State Senator is an outright lie. If a Republican with a pulse stepped forward and ran this time, Meyer would be back in retirement. My guess is that 2006-2008 will be Meyer's last run most likely because he won't run again but even if he does, then a plausible opponent will come forward in 2008.
I am fairly moederate guy, but I can't stand when people say such absurd things like you did---Meyer is a joke!

Anonymous said...

well, CTK, that leaves about 3,392,000 other folks in CT for him to win over

Anonymous said...

Keith:

Ed Meyer may win re-election. I say may because nothing is assured. But even if he does, he is a dead man walking. I would rather be John DeStefano Jr. than Eddie Baby at this point, knowing that every bill I propose, every measure I support, is DOA.

He is dead. And he knows it. More importantly, so does his caucus.

Bye, Ed. Enjoy solitary confinement.

GMR said...

the best State Senator in Connecticut,Ed Meyer

Does Ed still want an 18.97% Connecticut state tax bracket for those making over $2 million? Wouldn't it be kind of weird for CT to have a top marginal tax rate that was more than double the next highest State? Does he not think that the millionaires might leave the state for say, Westchester, if they were taxed that high? That hedge funds would move from Greenwich to White Plains and Armonk?

Wolcottboy said...

What happened to Jim Amman at the train station?

Anonymous said...

Jim Amman and Dave Shwartz (the poll director) look like they are from a episode of the Soprano's. I didn't realize that Lieberme's inner circle spread to Connecticut's poll directors. Hey boys and girls let Liebrman believe he is up 17 points. The more the merrier..

Anonymous said...

GMR,

Why do Republicans have to always lie? Ed Meyer never Proposed 18.97 tax rates for millionaires.He tried to open a conversation on a solution to our horrible property tax situation and said a more progressive income tax is probably the best and only sensible answer.

Do you have a better answer or are you fine with our dependence on the Property tax?

Anonymous said...

at least with property tax dependency there is accountability at the local level

Once money goes to Hartford local officials treat it like found money
when it comes back

GMR said...

The 18.97% rate was quoted in the Branford Review newspaper:

"He presented a few proposals that could make a difference in terms of property taxes. Scalettar, Meyer's "tax mentor," formulated a plan called "Option Number Three," that would decrease the current state income tax of five percent to 4.25 percent for those earning under $80,000 a year, and increase it to 18.97 percent for those earning more than $2 million a year.
According to Meyer, this would produce a great deal of money for the state of Connecticut."

Now, that's where I got my info. Perhaps the newspaper got it wrong.

It just struck me as odd that he could endorse this proposal, which would cause Connecticut's highest tax rate to be double the next highest state. I just have to think that such a high tax rate would cause those who earn over $2 million to radically change their behavior, like moving to any other state.

I don't know exactly what the answer to high property taxes is, but advocating anything as "progressive" as an 18.97% marginal rate isn't the way to prosperity. Especially in a state the size of Connecticut, where wealthy people could move over the state line and keep the same social network (country club, associates, private schools, etc). At some point, people (especially in Greenwich, which is very close to the border) will move if the taxes become that confiscatory.

We're also stuck in a hard place since Connecticut residents that work in New York pay their income tax to NY and not CT, since NY has higher rates. Some states like MD/DC have an agreement that income tax is paid to where you live, not where you work, but CT didn't do that (probably because we didn't have an income tax until 1991). Some NY state people work in CT, but many more go the other way...

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>Why do Republicans have to always lie? Ed Meyer never Proposed 18.97 tax rates for millionaires

When someone includes the link, it's not a lie. If your friend didn't support what was reported in May of 2005 he had plenty of time to set the record straight so it shouldn't be hard to find and post such a link.

Anonymous said...

http://www.whatsupfairfield.com/page2.html#trainStation

I saw that you covered this way back while Googling around. It's really dunmb what the state and Fairfeill are doing but governments do dumb things. The property owner is going to spend $25 million on cleaning up the brownfield but in exchange he's getting an out right grant of $4 million disguised as a CDA loan thanks to former State Rep. Dickman and Art Diedrich. In addition the state and town are going to spend at least $50 million in infrastructure improvements that will enhance the property value and the town rezoned the property to effectively doubling the density allowed. Then on top of that all the tenants will get state tax credits becasue it's a brownfield eventhough the government has more than made the property owner whole with the grant, infrastructure and zoning to overcompensate, actually, for the past contamination. Kudos to John DeStefano for saying he'd put an end to these loopholes that favor the politically connected while screwing the little guy. Too bad he's behind in the polls becasue he can't get his message out passed Rell and her out of state grandchild.

bluecoat said...

Justice Sullivan's Delusion from the New London Day.

Democrats, especially if friends of John Rowland, can make up an excuse for anything. Either that or they think everybody is just dumb.

Anonymous said...

Meyer comes right out and sais he believes we should tax the rich to death (or until they move out of the state). I give him credit for atleast being honest and saying what he believes, even if it is crazy.
He will win reelection because the R candidate is a total lightweight and most likely won't even win his own town. Meyer will be toast if he should run again which I doubt he will.

Anonymous said...

the guy that said "at least with the property tax dependency there is acountability at the local level" would only have municipal taxes assessed while eliminating all state and federal taxes I guess.

MikeCT said...

The NY Times endorsed Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney.

GMR said...

Kudos to John DeStefano for saying he'd put an end to these loopholes that favor the politically connected while screwing the little guy.

Republicans and Democrats are about equally complicit in favoring one group for tax breaks over another.

Both parties seemed to fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to UBS AG and RBS PLC, two foreign banks.

JDS has proposed giving property tax breaks to seniors, supposedly funding it through a tax on millionaires (like a bunch of other stuff that will supposedly also be paid for by tax on the rich).

JDS has a better web site than Rell. JDS has all these detailed policy proposals, most of which involve repealing the law of supply and demand in some form or the other. Jodi Rell has 3 sort of silly issues on her page, an arts initiative, some sort of trash reform (yeah, that's the number one issue for me), and some sort of energy policy...

JDS is concerned that milk is too cheap and wants to subsidize the dairy farmers further that the federal government and give them a bunch of other benefits.

Anonymous said...

The news media doesn't like Republicans

In other news, sharks do not like swimmers

bluecoat said...

Thanks for the link 11:04. I ain't thrilled with everything DeStefano wants to do and how he wants to do it but he wants to be "weaning" the state off the dependency of this stupid stuff. There ain't no perfect tax system but he is headed in the direction of leveling the playing field. Rell wants the state to pick up the tab for the local car tax without proposing any requisite reduction in spending - it's a shell game. The car tax sucks but she ain't going about getting rid of it the right way. DeStefano actually talks about consolidating like agencies to cut costs. Rell doesn't even know what many of the agencies do

Anonymous said...

The Q poll was the clear loser of the week. It's methods questionable, it's poll director's integrity brought into focus, on election day just as it was primary day, it will be proved that it was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Dave Zoni has acheived a rare milestone...he has convinced voters in thr Waterbury area he is running the most negative campaign in memory

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=14328