Comments for Political Capitol

Comment on Loftus-Levine, teachers association gird for tenure war by Jeff Klaus

Jeff Klaus — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:43:56 +0000

Just look at the infamous “rubber rooms” in nyc to determine whether some people are comfortable being paid for months if not years while their “due process” goes on and on and on – all at taxpayer expense.

Why are public school teachers different than the rest of us in that they should be afforded an legal opportunity to bog down legitimate performance evaluations? We all are employees at will.

Comment on Uh oh. State unions won’t like Malloy’s GPS proposal for vehicles by JC

JC — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:23:36 +0000

The taxpayer owns the vehicle, not the union. I would think a similar policy is in place for state computers and employees that use them for personal matters.

Comment on Tong weighs in on Hoekstra ad, wants apology by matt

matt — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:03:20 +0000

Great ad, spot on. Tong is a crybaby, shut up.

Comment on Uh oh. State unions won’t like Malloy’s GPS proposal for vehicles by Brian Lockhart

Brian Lockhart — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:49:34 +0000

Rell commissioned a study of GPS but it never went anywhere after that. I don’t recall that it became a political issue. It just was placed on the back burner, likely at least in part because of the budget crisis and the related costs.

Comment on McMahon joins critics of White House birth control policy by Doug Indeap

Doug Indeap — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:27:11 +0000

Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have confronted such issues and have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
Lost in the fuming over some supposed moral dilemma is that THE HEALTH CARE LAW DOES NOT FORCE EMPLOYERS TO ACT CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS–unless one supposes the employers’ religion forbids even payment of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion). In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide plans that do not qualify (e.g., without provisions they dislike) and pay lower assessments.

No moral dilemma, no need for an exemption. That the employers must at least pay an assessment is hardly justification for an exemption. In other contexts, for instance, we have relieved conscientious objectors from required military service, requiring them instead to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work. In any event, paying assessment does not pose a moral dilemma, but rather a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim–or, more plainly, lie–that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions.

Comment on McMahon joins critics of White House birth control policy by Paul

Paul — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:28:36 +0000

The schools and hospitals in question are not religious institutions. For the most part they are non-profit corporate entities/employers owned by religious institutions. They tap into a number of taxpayer supported funding streams and should be subject to the same rules as other employers. The exemptions provided are more than generous. McMahon views this as an opportunity to attack the president but make no mistake; she has joined others in an all-out assault on women’s reproductive health care.

Comment on Uh oh. State unions won’t like Malloy’s GPS proposal for vehicles by Big daddy

Big daddy — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:47:07 +0000

Wow—perhaps I recall incorrectly, but wasn’t this proposed by Rell more than a year ago and promptly shot down by the Dems? It’s OK now that a Dem proposes it? Hypocrites!

Comment on Uh oh. State unions won’t like Malloy’s GPS proposal for vehicles by ACR

ACR — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:55:30 +0000

Many, if not most business fleet cars already have GPS tracking devices; why shouldn’t state employees undergo the same supervision?

Comment on Tong weighs in on Hoekstra ad, wants apology by Paul

Paul — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:19:01 +0000

I agree with Rep. Tong but apologies from a low life bigot like Hoekstra are of little value. Time to write a check to Stabenow.

Comment on Follow that star, Chris Donovan by Liberty

Liberty — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:47:32 +0000

This is just too funny.