Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

A special thank you is extended to Theresa McGrath, President of the West Hartford Taxpayers Association, who is the inspiration and one of the facilitators of this event.� Theresa is well known for her hard work on behalf of taxpayers throughout our State and was highlighted recently in the Hartford Advocate for her efforts on behalf of Proposition 2 �.� �

Connecticut property owners pay one of the highest property taxes in the nation, second only to New Jersey.� Annual increased property taxes, driven by unfunded mandates and revaluation, put Connecticut property owners at risk of losing their most prized possession, their homes!� For this reason, legislators need to enact immediate and effective�

Property Tax Reform!

On Thursday, March 22, 2007, The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. will host a forum to discuss Proposition 2 � which is currently in effect in Massachusetts.�

Leading the discussion will be Connecticut State Representative Arthur O�Neil of Southbury who has proposed state legislation which would allow each municipality in Connecticut to incorporate Proposition 2 � into their Town Charters to control local spending, and in turn, local property taxes.�

Also participating in the forum will be other state legislators to include Sean Williams of� Watertown and Lile Gibbons of� Greenwich.� Mike Guarco, Finance Chair of Granby, and a leader in the Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility, which is comprised of local officials concerned for the impact of state mandates on their local budgets will also participate.�

A more extensive agenda will follow in the next couple of days.

�

**************

Again, thank you to all who have contributed to our latest Tax Talk publication through your editorials, news articles, etc.�

**************

CONGRATULATIONS TO ROBERT GREEN

Bob is a FCTO Board Member and a Member of the Salem Board of Education.� His excellent editorial which follows received much praise from readers of the Waterbury Republican where his editorial appeared.�

Great Job Bob!�� Bob can be reached at rgreen619@snet.net

Among the justifications for the initiatives the President explained in his State of the Union address was his insistence on the reauthorization of �No Child Left Behind�; perhaps the cruelest hoax that could ever be placed upon America�s youth.� The fact that members of Congress are meeting with the President to discuss renewal of NCLB, in my view, continues the sellout of America's youth; all in one more effort to continue and expand the usurpation of control of state and local governments and put it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats; all while our state representatives bow in submissive obedience.

The accolades about NCLB�s improvements in public education espoused by Margaret Spellings and the President have been shown to be mere myths according to the recent reports by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, NAEP, PACE, NWEA, the Center on Education Policy, and the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (to name a few). They conclude that any documented improvements in our nation's schools are the result of changes in place at the state and local levels prior to NCLB. They also cite, however, that NCLB can be credited with one major contribution: the slowing of the rate of improvement in performance of schools. A major area of concern all educators was closing the education gap within the minority student population. Prior to NCLB, progress was being made in that effort. Since NCLB, progress has remained stagnant and, in some cases, has begun to widen again, especially in reading and math. According to the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, the number of failing schools has increased 44 percent over last year alone, and that number is expected to swell sharply by the thousands over the next few years. Even more startling is the fact that over one quarter of our nation's K through 8 schools have failed to make AYP for at least more than one year. Now, included in the President�s push to renew NCLB is the expansion of its influence into our high schools.

So while we (Connecticut) sit on our collective hands and cry "poor" to Washington over not enough funding, our children suffer, because our representatives in Hartford refuse to accept their mandated responsibilities in providing the necessary support and resources to ensure the success of our public education systems. Instead, they turn to Washington and sing praises to the Golden Calf that is supposed to be the savior of the classroom. We can sue Washington three ways to Sunday over the issue of inadequate funding, but Congress ultimately decides what it perceives as adequate funding. Michigan has been given that message already, and I believe Connecticut will be handed its hat as its case goes to court on the same issue. It already has had a majority of its arguments denied as its case winds its way through the judicial system. However, a glimmer of hope is on the horizon. Kansas now is reconsidering its participation in NCLB, and more school districts nationwide are refusing Title I funding, because they don't want to be shackled with the ropes and anchors that come with it.� We only can hope that our elected and appointed representatives in Hartford and Washington will have an epiphany on how NCLB is steadily leaving all children behind, while it stifles classroom creativity and decimates the budgets that must meet its mandates.� Until then, they must be reminded regularly of the myths of NCLB.

I am convinced that the results of the November 2006 election weren't so much about the Republicans losing control of Congress. It was about the President getting the Congress he needed to pass his agenda. Renewal of NCLB is part of that agenda. We can reap the benefits of its non-renewel or we can pay for it later in the shackles on our ability to provide our students with the best education they deserve.

*************

Kudos to Judy Aron

Member of the West Hartford Taxpayers Association and

Board Member of FCTO

Judy�s Blog cannot be beat. �It is informative and entertaining.�

http://www.yedies.blogspot.com/

Here is an Excellent Editorial by Judy captioned

2007 - Proposed CT Legislation

Marching This State To Socialism

Judy Aron, imjfaron@sbcglobal.net

Good intentions or larger plan? If you examine the proposed legislation (see below) it should become clear to what is slowly being rolled out in CT regarding how early child education, public education and mental health initiatives are all being combined.� It is already happening in other states in the country, like Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey for example. The underlying agenda is to have children attend school as early as 3 years old, with health (including mental health screening) services to be administered from schools instead of your own family care.� Medical facilities/resources will be located at the school. This is all taxpayer funded. While �Universal Taxpayer Funded Preschool� is now just being proposed on a voluntary basis here in CT, once the infrastructure is put into place, the compulsory school age will be lowered and all children will be required to attend school at age three.� Government/taxpayer funded universal preschool is offered in most European countries, and �Social Progressives� are pushing those initiatives here. Most children in Britain already start full-time school -- in so-called "reception" classes -- at age 4. Standards and developmental benchmarks have been set by the State and woe to the parent of the child who doesn�t meet those standards which include nutrition and weight.�� Click on the following to read all of Judy�s editorial �.. http://nheld.com/socialistct2007.htm

***************

Roy Duncan, royldunc@aol.com

(Past President of Taxpayer Advocates for Bloomfield)��

Bloomfield

Letter to the Editor, Hartford Courant

Feb 20, 2007

Connect the Dots - In the Courant�s 2/20/07 edition there was an article (Rell School Plan Faces Opposition) and an op-ed piece by William Baxter and Dick Ohanesian (Reform Prevailing Wage Law).� The article focused on Gov. Rell�s proposal to reduce the state�s contribution toward the construction of new schools.� That would save the state money and shift more of the responsibility to municipalities.� The opinion piece discussed the prevailing wage mandate imposed by a state law that drives up the cost of school construction, and all public projects, by as much as 30%.

Let�s connect the dots.� The connection is clear.� The article and the opinion piece demonstrate both a problem as well as its potential solution. �If the state wishes to save money and to force more accountability on the towns for the cost of new school construction, why doesn�t the state make step #1 the abolishment of the antiquated and costly prevailing wage law?�� The cost of constructing all public projects, including schools, would decrease drastically.�� Any financial blow to the municipalities brought on by the Governor�s proposed reduced cost sharing plan would be lessened if the cost of building schools were to be reduced by as much as 30%.� The Governor would win and the towns would win.��

So, why aren�t the Governor, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and the entire General Assembly asking questions about the wisdom, and the necessity, of striking the prevailing wage law from the books?� The biggest obstacle to change, of course, is labor unions and their cozy connection to Connecticut politics and politicians.� But, if the Governor and the General Assembly are serious about saving state dollars and implementing real property tax reform (instead of just talking about it), they will have to tackle this delicate issue.� If they are not serious, then they will assiduously avoid this discussion.� Avoiding the issue is the easy way out.� It will inevitably lead to the kind of increased taxes Gov. Rell has proposed.� When cost-saving measures are tabled or ignored, the only possible outcome is increased taxes.� Roy Duncan

***************

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/

1726 M Street NW, Washington D.C. 20036

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE � March 13, 2007

Contacts: Ed Frank or Annie Patnaude (202) 349-5880

National Taxpayer Group Calls on Central Connecticut State to Not Shower Elected Officials With Free NCAA Tournament Tickets to Facilitate Pork-Barrel Earmarks

Data Shows Central Connecticut State Spent $580,500 Lobbying Congress Since 1998, Little-Known Loophole in New Congressional Gift Ban Allows Free Tickets From Taxpayer-Funded Lobbyists

NEW BRITAIN, CT � The national free-market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity today released a letter urging Central Connecticut State President John Miller to declare publicly that the school will not provide free NCAA Basketball Tournament tickets to any Members of Congress or Congressional staffers in violation of the spirit of recently approved ethics reform legislation.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 6, which included strict new ethics guidelines, including a ban on almost all gifts from registered lobbyists. Specifically, Section 203 of the resolution stipulates: �A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or from a private entity that retains or employs registered lobbyists.�

However, H. Res. 6 preserves a curious loophole that exempts gifts from lobbyists paid for by state or local governments. In those situations, there is absolutely no monetary limit on the gifts that can be accepted. This exemption allows lobbyists for entities like public universities and city governments to ignore the new gift ban and attempt to unfairly influence Members of Congress and their staff with free courtside or luxury skybox tickets to sold-out sporting events like the Final Four or the Rose Bowl.

While this kind of unlimited gift-giving is considered completely unethical or even illegal if it is done by lobbyists representing private companies or not-for-profit groups like Americans for Prosperity, for some reason it is considered perfectly legal when it is done by taxpayer-funded government lobbyists, who are usually lobbying for additional federal funding at the expense of the taxpayer. That�s the real March Madness, said AFP�s President, Tim Phillips.

�I am writing to urge you to publicly declare that your institution will not provide free NCAA Tournament tickets to any U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, or any Congressional staffers through this gift-ban loophole for government lobbyists,� Phillips wrote in his letter to Miller. I also respectfully request that you contact the U.S. Representatives from your state and encourage them to support and co-sponsor legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (6^th Dist. � Ariz.) that would close this unfair loophole.�

Lobbying by public universities has exploded in recent years to as much as $75 million, as has the number and expense of academic pork-barrel earmarks. This year�s Tournament will include teams representing public universities like defending national champion University of Florida, which received $2 million in 2005 for �facilities and equipment for an animal facility, and to Texas A&M, which received $1 million in 2006 for a �Renewable Energy Animal Waste Project.�

Americans for Prosperity Foundation�s �Ending Earmarks Express� road tour traveled more than 10,000 miles visiting the sites of 50 egregious pork-barrel projects in 37 states last year, including many public universities. Questionable academic earmarks highlighted by the Ending Earmarks Express included $300,000 to map the catfish genome at Auburn University, $500,000 to study how to eliminate wasteful federal spending at the University of Akron and $1.7 million to the University of Missouri to research the cultivation of shiitake mushrooms.

NOTE: For more information, including a ranking of every school in the Tournament according to how much money they've spent lobbying Congress in recent years, visit: www.TheRealMarchMadness.com.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is the nation�s premier grassroots organization committed to advancing every individual�s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

***************

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WATCH

A special thank you to Len Chaponis lchaponis@earthlink.net

of the New Britain Taxpayers Group CPOA for keeping us current on the illegal immigration issue.

A law enacted in Hazleton, Pennsylvania to curtail illegal immigration is being challenged in the courts.� As hard as it may be to believe the plaintiffs will not have to testify but simply submit depositions, rather than offer testimony and face cross-examination.� This is a case worth following as it could have a national impact.� Click on the headings highlighted in blue.��

Testimony contentious at times (News/Local News) March 14, 2007

City�s IIRA to be revised Thursday to remove three words (News/Local News) March 14, 2007

Despite not taking stand to testify yet, Barletta plays major role in proceedings (News/Local News)� March 13, 2007

A tale of two cities: Hazleton�s IIRA assailed, defended in trial�s opening (News/Local News)� March 13, 2007

Anonymous plaintiffs won't have to testify (News/Local News) March 11, 2007

Nation watching for IIRA outcome (News/Local News)� March 11, 2007

Hazleton�s illegals law on trial Monday (News/Local News)� March 11, 2007

***************

State Suing Immigrants' Sponsors, Controversy Centers On Public Assistance, March 1, 2007, By ANN MARIE SOMMA, Courant Staff Writer - The state says Madhvi Bahguna owes it $20,178.22.� She didn't neglect her taxes. But her mother, who immigrated to the United States from India seven years ago, used state benefits to receive medical treatment for her diseased heart. The state Department of Social Services is suing Bahguna and about 300 other people in Connecticut because they were sponsors of immigrants who received public support.� http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sponsors0301.artmar01,0,5384469.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

***************

One more reason to curb spending,

March 3, 2007 Waterbury Republican Editorial

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=20362

��And that gets us to Gov. M. Jodi Rell's plan for a 10 percent income-tax increase, which would cost 142 towns and cities more in taxes than they would get back in state aid next year while diverting another $3.5 billion to public education over five years on the insane theory that spending more for the same product would make it better. (The irony is this disastrous proposal comes from a woman who was part of a gubernatorial ticket elected in 1994 on the promise of income-tax repeal. The tax, however, survived, leading to an avalanche in state spending and borrowing, a mass exodus of jobs and people, and an economic malaise that continues to this day.)� Given the inevitability of another recession and considering that Connecticut, thanks to the profligate government spending that the income tax enabled, has yet to recover from its last two recessions, wouldn't an income tax increase now be, to quote the corpulent sage, "like throwing gasoline on a fire"?

***************

Visit this great website

http://cttaxed.com

***************