Letters to the editor: A warm welcome to Town Hall; Teachers should participate in Social Security
A warm welcome
to Town Hall
To the editor:
I skipped over the front page lead story in favor of the Q&A for Ms. Carberry, the new town hall chief of staff.
The writer might have asked more than five questions, but there are four questions and four answers provided.
The first asks about differences she perceives might exist between corporate and town hall work. Miss Carberry answers that it’s a skill set she possesses and will apply to work at town hall. I paraphrase. Her answer is good for me, for, I’m sure, that she has those skills down pat.
The second asks what differences she might expect.
To find in her new job compared to her old one. The two, corporate and town hall, are as different as they are the same. One does what the boss requires of you and you ask questions and, or review past work as needed.
The third asks her what goals she might have in her role. The answer will depend upon her learning what her role is whenever she finishes learning what it truly is as opposed to what she was told it was.
The fourth question is “What brought her to Fairfield?” It was her husband’s job that did, and that’s OK, too.
Welcome to Fairfield, Ms. Carberry. Most of us will not be seeing much of you, but your boss is a nice gentleman, and the working conditions are good and probably hectic at times, too, which will not be anything new for you, either.
Teachers should participate in Social Security
To the editor:
Yes, Connecticut public school teachers do not participate in the federal government’s Social Security Pension and Disability system, but they could and they should participate.
In the 1980s, all new federal government employees began to participate in Social Security. In the 1990s, all new Connecticut state government employees started to participate in the federal program, which most of us in the private sector have participated in since we first started to earn a paycheck. Connecticut remains only one of 13 states not having teachers participating in Social Security. This needs to change.
Since the 1950s, when Social Security came on the national stage, the Connecticut Education Association (i.e. state teachers union) has staunchly resisted any and all participation in Social Security. The union even has the creative math and a gauntlet of state legislation to back up their longstanding resistance. That ominous road block ought to be enough to tell Lamont he needs to look at all of the alternatives to solving Connecticut’s public school teacher retirement and disability funding dilemma.
Social Security should be the base benefit for all newly hired teachers with a reasonable pension on top of that.
To the editor:
Have you ever looked at something that was happening, and felt unsettled about it? Sometimes you feel, deep down in your gut, that something isn’t right. You don’t know why, but something is making you wonder about what is going on.
To put it another way, it’s one of those “things that make you go, ‘hmmm’ ” (thanks to C&C Music Factory for the quote). I may get some hate for this, but I can’t help feeling this way about the recent governor’s election in Connecticut. Let me explain the factors that are arousing my suspicion.
The first factor is that of general post-election “shenanigans” by the Democratic Party. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past week, you’re probably aware of the way Florida made a complete mess of their governors and U.S. Senate elections. It gives me no pleasure to report that similar things are happening in Georgia, as well as Arizona.
Having been witness to this liberal attempt to take power “by any means necessary,” I find myself asking why the same kind of thing can’t happen in Connecticut. After all, all of our key state officials are Democrats. Maybe I’m incorrect in this assessment, but I’m “raising a brow,” so to speak. I believe it was Stalin who said that it doesn’t matter who votes; it matters who counts the votes.
Second, I take issue with certain statements made by Denise Merrill, Connecticut’s secretary of the state.
On election night (and into the next morning), there was a long delay in getting votes in from certain areas. Ms. Merrill explained this delay by complaining about “wet ballots.” It seems to me that all the polling places were located indoors. Assuming this is true, then how and why would ballots have gotten wet? Unless someone was just coming out of a pool, perhaps (and had a ballot with them in the pool), there’s no reason that this should have occurred. Now, I’m not saying that any votes were altered, but the long delays could have provided officials with the opportunity to do so.
By the way, what are two big parts of establishing criminal suspicion? One of them is motive; the other is opportunity.
The third factor is possibly the most unnerving one, as far as I am concerned. Many of my friends have told me that at some polling places, it was possible to vote without showing identification. Although the secretary of the state’s website disagrees, this is a violation of state law.
If the allegations that officials were admitting voters that failed to show identification are true, then all such votes are illegal, and should be disqualified. In such a case, it would perhaps be sensible to call for a new election. This is a significant point of order, and should be investigated.
We’re not done yet, unfortunately. I have it on very good authority that on election night, Democrats were busing students from UConn (the University of Connecticut) to several out-of-district polling places. This was done with the stated intention of having the students vote in incorrect districts. This could have inflated vote counts in several areas. In case you haven’t noticed, most UConn students are quite liberal, in that they always vote for Democrats. Perhaps this is the source of voting complaints in the cities of New Haven, Meriden, and Orange (at one point on election night, the state GOP had a lawsuit pending concerning those areas).
Also, WTNH TV in New Haven is today (Nov. 16) reporting that several voting districts are to have their results “audited”, aka recounted. The areas to be recounted have been randomly selected by the Secretary of the State. She, like all other major officials in Connecticut, is a Democrat. This appears, at least to me, to be a major conflict of interest. All that Secretary Merrill has to do is announce that her office has found no discrepancies. Once she does that, all concerns with the validity of the vote will be forgotten about.
There are some who will think my concerns to be “much ado about nothing,” and a waste of time. However, with the initial results of the governor’s race being very close, I believe that these issues are worth investigating. We have already seen that Democrats will go to any lengths in their pursuit of power; this is not limited to major violations of the law, or even acts of violence. As such, this is an open letter to the secretary of the state of Connecticut. Can you explain what’s going on here, or otherwise alleviate my concerns? I’m sorry, but it seems as though “something is rotten in Denmark” (”Macbeth,” William Shakespeare).