From:
Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: ctact.org
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
December 13, 2004
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
WELCOME TO THE 40th EDITION OF
TAX TALK
Your update on what
others are thinking, doing, and planning.
Send your comments or questions to me, at fctopresident@ctact.org and I will include in next week’s publication.
Review previous Tax Talk issues on our
website at http://www.ctact.org/
**********
TODAY’S NEWS: A brief summary is offered below. FCTO encourages you to read the entire news
articles at the websites referenced.
December 14, 2004
Medicare Payment
Errors Nearly $20 Billion
By MARK SHERMAN, AP
WASHINGTON
(Dec. 14) - Medicare wants to cut the rate of questionable payments by more than
half, to 4 percent, by 2008, administrator Mark McClellan says. "The main
objective here is to pay it right," McClellan said Monday, the day
Medicare reported that private companies that process health claims from its
beneficiaries made nearly $20 billion in erroneous or questionable payments
last year, an error rate of 9.3 percent.
Please find a continuation of this article at the following
website: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041214025809990002
********
The following is a good news source: http://www.keepmedia.com/Search.do?refinePubTypeID=0&criteria=Economy&x=32&y=1
********
December
3, 2004
Property taxes
rising nationwide
By Ron Scherer | Staff
writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK
– While fuel prices may be starting to skid, there's another expense
closer to home that is upsetting many Americans: rising property taxes. From Madison, Wis., to Bucks County, Pa., the local tax assessor
is dipping deeper into homeowners' pockets as real estate prices rise and
states share less of their tax revenue with local governments. Please find a continuation of this article at
the following website: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1203/p01s01-usec.html
*******
Friday December 10, 10:44 AM
Bill Moyer Retiring From TV Journalism claims “we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose
interest is the American people." I offer this article for the many taxpayer
groups who believe this is a universal problem which they have experienced in
our attempt to receive fair coverage of issues we are involved in. The complete article is found at the
following website: http://www.miami.com/mld/mercurynews/living/10420849.htm?1c
*******
WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME
TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF
LOWER OUR TAXES
I am delighted to announce that Lower our Taxes which is
based in New London has just joined
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations. Kudos to this fine group
of concerned taxpayers who are astute on the issues and eager to challenge the
excessive taxation imposed by local and state governments. I was honored to be part of their one hour
cable show, hosted by Jim Louziotis, on
Friday, December 3. Jim’s email address
is ledgehill@netzero.net and I know Jim and his group will offer many valuable
contributions to FCTO. Welcome
aboard!
********
CONGRATULATIONS NEWINGTON
Congratulations are also
extended to Bob Briggaman of Newington who is beginning the formation of a tax group for his area.
Anyone wishing to provide Bob with some
insight and encouragement, can email Bob at BriggFam@aol.com.
********
Mike Guarco, BudgetGuru06035@aol.com
Board of Finance Chairman, Granby
Subject: Binding
Arbitration
November 28, 2004
(A Message from Susan Kniep: Please read the
following. I have met with Mike and feel
confident that working together we will be successful in our attempts to change
Binding Arbitration. I will keep you
posted on future developments, and know that you will, in turn, keep your
membership informed).
Susan We have corresponded a bit before in the
spring, and Edie Duncan and I did attend the June meeting. I am Mike Guarco, and I chair the Board of
Finance in Granby. I believe that
your next meeting would be June 2005, but we will be seeking your aid prior to
that time...as you see below. Your efforts are appreciated, and the need
to work together so crucial...the opposing side is strong, pervasive, and
well-funded. Earlier this year a group of Finance chairmen in the Farmington Valley began meeting and
soon found that we had the same issues, irrespective of party. The more we
talked the more we were perplexed by how the state could continuously be in
deficit, by always running an expenditure open buffet, primarily by feeding the
unions...locally as well as state employee...at the growing expense of
taxpayers. The Democrat leadership on the Hill showed its true colors when, in
order to muscle money into the state budget to save the 2800 laid off by
Rowland, the legislature reneged on its prior funding of a $1000 property tax
assessment exemption for the disabled. That showed they represent the little
guy, as long as he belongs to a union...that gives the Deems campaign money.
Fed up with the shafting the towns and taxpayers take from Hartford we chose to act.
Having seen that the agendas of many of the agencies..CCM,COST,CABE,CRCOG,
CREC, et al...were rather similar, I asked the First Selectman and BOE chairman
in Granby to join me in
requesting a meeting with these group's representatives in order to unify their
stances on a short common agenda to present to legislators. We met with them a
few times, seeking to hammer out a common platform. We noted that even CABE's
agenda calls for repeal or major reform of the farce that the state calls
binding arbitration...I think that often they ,as an example, speak softly on
that issue, but when we Boards of Finance speak to it, we are seen as
anti-education. We discussed the fact that we need to educate folks that its
repeal or major reform ARE the pro-ed position...as there is only so much money
to go around, and these pro-union mandates are choking local govt and taxpayers
to death, just as they are continually having the python effect on state
govt...continually in the red, as costs...read that wages and benefits...
proceed at higher rates than inflation..than revenues...than taxpayer incomes
are increasing. Until the legislature realizes it’s in a management role, and
gets its expenditure side of the equation under control, it will never solve
its budget problems, and will continue to force unnecessary costs on the towns,
and taxpayers.
In October, our Farmington Valley based Finance
chairs group talked of asking for a meeting at the Capitol with our area state
reps and senators in January, to address our concerns with them directly. As we
flesh out our agenda, and given the apparent deficit position the state expects
for FY06 and 07(.what should they expect, having used so much one-time,
non-replenish able money to balance FY05)..,while we will press for fulfilling
their revenue commitments to towns, it is relief from the mandates that push
costs up on towns across the state..pro-union, but anti-services,
anti-education, anti-taxpayer...that we will argue for.
We know that when the issues come up for hearings at the Capitol, typically a
half dozen of the agency reps go, and a dozen or so elected local officials, to
be met by 200 union bodies, and the outcome is readily decided before the first
word is uttered. Our goal is then to muster a network of organizations to
counterbalance the unions at those critical junctures. We intend to mobilize
the agencies to speak as one...we are building a network of Boards of Finance
chairs across the state to be a driving force in enlisting the numerous towns
to speak out and support these actions that will flatten the curve of govt
growth...flattening out tax increases while helping keep and expand program. We
too have had enough of the statewide calamity of 5% property tax increases
while municipal employment and services actually drop. The time is now....while
the state legislature is facing its own deficits..and needs to find ways to
control costs...in other words, manage the budget.
Our Farmington Valley based group, originally the 7 towns of
Avon, Granby, East Granby, Suffield,
Simsbury, Canton, and Burlington, has now picked up Hartland, East
Windsor, Windsor Locks, and New Britain - 11 of the 13 communities with a Board
of Finance in Hartford County...plus Barkhamsted and New Hartford just
along the border in Litchfield County. One of those passed word to the Norfolk chair, who we welcomed
as well. We are working with the Eastern CT Regional Finance Group...Finance
chairs and a couple of First Selectmen in towns without a BOF..to merge our
missions...and I am participating in the genesis of another group around Waterbury...reaching out
into southern Litchfield, upper Fairfield, and New Haven Counties. The chairmen of
the 3 boards - Finance, Education, and Selectmen - in Granby and East Granby are drafting a
letter - signed by all 6 of us - to all the other 167 communities seeking their
participation in this effort. To some degree BOF-led, its presentation will be
as common interest...across the boards, across the parties, and across the
state...so that when the call goes out, we can muster a couple or few hundred
souls to appear when needed at the Capitol, and meanwhile lobby and wear down
the legislators beholden to the unions. They need to know their continued
support for these mandates are nothing less than anti-education, anti-
taxpayer, anti-local govt, and anti-working family. Time to paint them into a
corner.
There is obviously a natural alliance between your efforts
and ours. In fact, the need to spread the word..to get more local officials
involved with the process..and to mobilize the groups under your umbrella
organization into being part of the muscle and body count we can get to the
hearings and pressing the issues with local legislators, are all functions that
are necessary if we want to succeed in this effort. As the saying goes, united
we stand...divided we fall. As the local budget season begins in the first
quarter, we hope to enlist the municipal officials in informing the public of
these matters, and would encourage taxpayers to speak directly to the issues at
the budget hearings and Town Meetings across Connecticut. I would
encourage your groups to work where they can with local officials and state
reps to push the agenda....as there is no hope for local and state govt when
the legislature spends your tax dollars like water...and where they operate
under thinking of labor rather than management. We face a gargantuan task,
and need to work collectively on many fronts to get the job done. It will take
time, and much effort, but we know we have no choice. Your critical
and supplemental efforts at the grassroots in this would be greatly
appreciated, as we prepare to fight the good fight.
********
Robert Young, ryoung0@snet.net
Wethersfield Taxpayers
Association
Subject: State Supreme
Court upholds $1.75 million award for seized property
Associated Press
December 4 2004
(From
Susan Kniep: We are indebted to Bob
Young of Wethersfield who has kept us current on eminent domain and property
rights issues. The following is one
such article…)
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The state
Supreme Court upheld a damages award of $1.75 million against the town of Windham and to the former
owners of the Windham Mills property
that was taken by eminent domain.
In the unanimous decision Friday, the justices noted a "protracted and
contentious" dispute that dates to the early 1990s. For a continuation of this article please go to the
following:
http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/statewire/hc-04183445.apds.m0017.bc-ct--willdec04,0,3217984.story
********
Marvin Edelman, marvined@earthlink.net
Windham/Willimantic Taxpayers Association
Dear Susan:
Now we have this scandal which could bankrupt the town of Windham. You may
wish to publish Bill Rood's letter on the FCTO website. Marvin
(From
Susan Kniep: Please note that the following is in relationship to the
aforementioned article provided by Bob Young.)
COMMENTARY:
The Supreme Court of the state of Connecticut has forced the
people of the town of Windham to finally
confront the truth and reality about the $9 million financial catastrophe that
our local politicians have foisted on us and on the backs of our children and
grandchildren.
The fiasco began ten years ago when then First Selectman
Walter Pawelkiewicz announced to the dozen people
attending a town meeting that he had a sure-fire plan for bringing new
prosperity to the town. He advocated
that the town of Windham use the power of
eminent domain and seize the Windham Mills for $1 from
their private owners, the ATC Partnenership. He failed to tell his audience that he would
be violating the good-faith negotiations still going on with the ATC group for
the purchase of the property at true, current value. The public record reports that when James DeVivo and Frank Ereshena
questioned the wisdom and legality of such radical action, Pawelkiewicz
quieted their uneasiness with the unequivocal assurance that the project would
regenerate prosperity in the town with 1200-2000 new jobs, that it would have
the support of state and federal agencies anxious to assist an economically
distressed town such as Windham/Willimantic and, as a final reassurance, that
this would never cost the people in town a single dollar. No one suggested that for such a
precedent-setting action it would be prudent to secure broader taxpayer
approval through a town-wide referendum.
Unless everyone has forgotten Pawelkiewicz
then engineered the board of selectmen to transfer the Mills for another $1 to
the umbrella Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance which then
morphed into the Windham Mills Development Corporation with the former first
selectman among the self-appointed members of the board of directors. Those who raised charges of conflict of
interest and questionable ethical practices were maligned as negativists and
obstructionists.
And so the ten-year saga began. The ATC Partnership sued the town for the
true value of the property. Offers to
settle were rejected by successor boards of selectmen. Upon the advice of the
town’s attorney Richard Cody, rulings by Superior and Appeals
Courts were continuously appealed with reckless disregard for the expenditures
of the people’s money. We now know the resulting costs. The bill comes to the $4 million which the
taxpayers must pay the ATC Partnership, the $4 million bond that the electors
voted to give as a gift to the Mills in the misguided effort to save the Mills
from bankruptcy but which will now be auctioned off on December 15, and the $1
million in legal fees and court costs that have been paid to Attorney Cody for
his role in this unholy affair.
If the taxpayers in Windham/Willimantic retain any belief in
holding elected officials to a moral and
ethical code of behavior and that public responsibility requires public
accountability, in full righteous anger they should demand the resignation from
public office of every politician who participated in this travesty of public
service and public trust and fire the attorney who contributed the self-serving
and flawed legal advice which has brought shame and disgrace to the town of
Windham.
William Rood, President
Windham/Willimantic Taxpayers Association
91 Parish Hill Road
North Windham, CT 06256
860-456-2287
December 6, 2004
********
Tim White, timwhite98@yahoo.com
Questions:
Of the 169 CT municipalities, how many went to referendum this
year?
Cheshire, CT
203.439.4394
(From Susan Kniep: I received the following
inquiry from Tim White for those who may wish to respond.)
I'm curious to know... of the 169 CT municipalities,
how many went to referendum this year? (If you happen to know.) I'm a member of the Council in Cheshire and we managed to
avoid a referendum. We had a 6.5%
residential property tax hike built in this year, as we recently went through
property revaluation and the burden shifted from commercial to residential.
And largely due to that increase, we simply didn't increase spending this
year. There was great concern, but we did avoid a referendum...
which was my goal. Tim White
*******
I received this New York
Times Editorial from a number of sources.
Please, Sir, May I Have Some Armor?
Published: December
9, 2004
We're used to hearing Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld answer questions about things that went
wrong in Iraq by saying they went right. When he does
that to reporters, it's annoying. When he does it to troops risking their lives
in his failed test of bargain-basement warfare, it's outrageous.
Yesterday,
Mr. Rumsfeld told soldiers at a staging area in Kuwait to ignore
"the doubters" who say the escalating war is not going well. Then he
invited the troops, some of them headed to their second combat tours, to ask
him "tough questions." They evidently thought he meant it.
A National
Guard scout from Tennessee asked why there
was still an equipment shortage that forced units to scrounge for
"hillbilly armor": "pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised
ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted." When the
cheering died down, Mr. Rumsfeld said that, really,
there was plenty of armor and in any case, "all the armor in the
world" might not save you from a roadside bomb.
"You go
to war with the Army you have," Mr. Rumsfeld
fumed, "not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
He may have forgotten that the timetable for invading Iraq was dictated by
politics, not military necessity. The armor shortage was also an outgrowth of
his zeal to prove that a country can be invaded and occupied by a small and
lightly armed force. A spokesman for the questioner's unit told reporters that
95 percent of its 300 trucks were not sufficiently armored.
Later, a
woman said she and her husband "joined a volunteer army" but were
serving extra tours under the "stop loss" program, a forced-duty
clause in military contracts. "The 'stop loss' has been used by the
military for years and years and years," Mr. Rumsfeld
lectured. "It's all well understood when someone volunteers to join the
service."
Mr. Rumsfeld talks a lot about supporting the troops. We wish
that someone powerful would explain to him that doing so includes treating them
with respect and telling them the truth.
*******