September 4, 2008

Fitzgerald endorsed by professors

Press release from Republican state House contender Jill Fitzgerald:

Republican 77th Assembly District candidate Jill Fitzgerald has been endorsed by the Connecticut State University –American Association of University Professors for election to the state legislature.

“This endorsement is a result of careful consideration of your positions and our perception that you recognize the needs of public higher education in Connecticut,” said John Harmon, who chairs the CSU-AAUP’s Political Committee. “Your interest in maintaining a viable and quality program of higher education in the future will be most appreciated.”

The CSU-AAUP’s faculty members at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic, Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, and Western Connecticut State University in Danbury “will be informed of our endorsement and urged to support your election,” Harmon said.

“I am truly honored to have received this endorsement” said Jill Fitzgerald. “Our state university system is one to be proud of. With the high cost of private higher education, our state universities offer an affordable and viable option to Connecticut families. As your state representative, I will be fully committed to maintaining and supporting these universities as well as being committed to seeking incentives for residents to continue their education here in our state.”


*******

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gee no comments on a "Union" endorsement"?

Anonymous said...

Hey Steve it's endorsed. They won't let anyone make a mistake cause they are perfect. ;)

Steve Collins said...

Fixed. Darn typos....

Wright is Wrong said...

Wow, smart people like Jill Fitzgerald! No surprise to me.

Congratulations Jill!

Anonymous said...

But what is she going to do for me in the 77th?

How many professors live here?

Anonymous said...

How many press releases is this Jill Cockayne ?

Anonymous said...

Is she considered a "great" Union lady now ?

Anonymous said...

5:19a.m - imagine, one on the city council, one in the state legislature and one in the White House - kiss this country goodbye.

Anonymous said...

At first it is where is Jill Fitzgerald and now she is sending out too many press releases?? Give me a break!!

What is Chris Wright going to do for you in the 77th district and how is he going to do it?

He is going after the federal governemnt in most of his statments, but I am pretty sure he is running for a state office.

Wright is Wrong said...

How many press releases has Chris "Karl Marx" Wright released?

Anonymous said...

Not as many as Jill Cockayne has.

Anonymous said...

9:17 I guess you could say the same about Jill.

Anonymous said...

and we all know that every college professor is totally unbiased, is in touch with the "real" society and can relate to something other than their "own" recognized theories - might be great to hear if any one of them will stand up and try to connect with "OUR" society - yeah, the real working person.

Anonymous said...

Surprise, Jill being supported by Liberals.

Anonymous said...

How would you fix the economy? I believe more taxes and regulation is not the answer. Why do we have the highest tax burden in the country here in Connecticut, yet one of the slowest growing economy? You don't think those 2 things are connected in anyway?

My favorite legislative scam is raising the minimum wage, that is a good thing, yet not capping the gross receipts tax on gasoline just takes that wage hike away and into the government's hands. Dem's are all for helping us get a living wage so they can just take it away in taxes!! Go Jill!!!!

Wright is Wrong, the Professors are right (this time) said...

September 5, 2008 8:32 PM

I assume since you have no respect for the opinion of professors, especially those employed by the state, that you will not be sending your kids to college (funded mostly at tax payers expense). But I'm sure you will, and then you'll complain that the tuition (again funded mostly by tax-payers) is too high.

Anonymous said...

10:37 - Professor, relax, your paycheck is safe and all of your rhetoric is protected under the umbrella, tattered as it may be, of education. Smug is as Smug goes - have a smuggly day.

Anonymous said...

Who are you trying to kid 11:40 ? Gross receipts tax so you can pray that the oil companies give it to you at the pump ?? What a laugh. I think you just want to "prey" on those who don't have it so that there's more for you. You can't earn it without screwing them.

Anonymous said...

Is Jill a Republican, a democrat, or what?

Can't tell from her signs.

Anonymous said...

Chris Wright elected = more businesses look to locate in states other then Connecticut = less jobs for the middle class.

Anonymous said...

Jill is a democrat but not a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

Call her a democrat dumocrat Democret demorat...but she is a REPUBLICAN

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't SHE admit it ?

Anonymous said...

McCain targets Bush and GOP to portray himself as a political maverick in White House race

Anonymous said...

if you were a reublican today, would you be telling anyone?....

Anonymous said...

6:20 "Who are you trying to kid 11:40 ? Gross receipts tax so you can pray that the oil companies give it to you at the pump ?? What a laugh. I think you just want to "prey" on those who don't have it so that there's more for you. You can't earn it without screwing them."

So the state gives "them" as you call some people, a pay increase, but takes it away in a gross receipts tax that is supposed to increase again next year from 7 to 8.1 percent.

The Dem anwser is always well the oil companies are doing it so we should also do it. Where is the proof that oil companies do not pass on the tax savings? IS that just speculation? I have been seeing gas prices come down as oil drops, yet we are still much higher than our neighboring states and I have a hunch the highest gas taxes in the country are a reason.

I am also not sure what "it" is that you refer to, is it gas, taxes, money? Who are them? Really should try and use a noun here and there to better explain your position.

I am sure the retort back is going to be something that attacks me personally, but doesn't actually refute my observation. Go Jill!!!

Anonymous said...

Proof is very simple. When the gas tax was cut 14 cents is it cheaper now than it was then? Hell no. What more proof do you want? Now prove they will pass it on.

Anonymous said...

12:45 you republicans are the ones who attack personally not the Dems. They do give you some of the same.

Anonymous said...

Actually gas is cheaper today than it was back when the Gas tax increase was postponed. Back in early July we were paying 4.00 plus and today it is around 3.70 cents. Oil has dropped to almost 100 bucks a barrel and that is showing up in lower gas prices. As to proof that they will pass it on, by your own arguement look at the price today versus back in late June. Here is a chart to prove my point:

http://www.connecticutgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

I still think there needs to be a cap on the Gross receipts tax as why should the governemnt make more money simply because the price of gas goes up. I know your anwser will be well the oil companies make windfall profit and the state deserves those more than the companies. Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

As to name calling I think both sides are to blame and it disgusts me to hear it from both sides D or R. It really is not called for at all.

Anonymous said...

Not true spin meister 4:14! You just try to convince people of that! Gas is higher now than it was when the gas tax was cut. You should learn what your talking about. And keep defending the oil companies. Nobody is buying that at all. Rediculous !!!!

Anonymous said...

You are talking about the postponed tax receipts NOT the gas tax cut. Are you a stock holder in big oil ? 4:14 ?

Anonymous said...

Like you said as to name calling. I say you reap what you sow. You started it now we rise to the occassion. You're right both sides do it .....NOW. So if you want it to stop ......stop!

Anonymous said...

Do you have a pension? A 401k? If you do then you own some stock in big oil. Exxonmobil is largest single holding in the state pension plan. So most people are share holders in this company. I do not have a pension and very little in a 401k, so I bet you hold more big oil than I do. Interesting that the price of gas in our state is 7.5 percent higher than in Mass and New York, but the higher tax here is not the reason you say? You can keep on defending big government which is just as much to blame as Big oil!


The charts do not lie if you compare them to our neighboring states. Try it for yourself.

Anonymous said...

The charts do not lie but you do. Mass has tolls too, want them ?

Anonymous said...

How do I lie? I am sure we are going to get tolls as the proposal has been floated already this year. The best you can do is call me a name and yet not once give me hard facts that the gas tax is not part of the reason we have some of the highest gas prices in the country. You are really hard to have a meaningful discussion with as in the end you just resort to calling me names. Come on lets discuss this as adults, it is a real issue in this state.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Jill understands all (or any) of this?

Anonymous said...

All you have to do dummy is look at what the price of gas was when the gas tax was cut It was in the dollar range. That's how you lie! Well maybe you border line lie by trying to confuse the public. I believe if your smart enough to do your research you will see why I said you lie.

Anonymous said...

Now? After all this time and your done with your stupid namecalling you want to discuss issues and act like adults. We are only giving you what you thought you were only able to do. Disgusting isn't it ?

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't any one republican or democrat complained about the taxpayers money used to bail out Fannie Mae or Freddie Max? Those executives who mismanaged our money drove their Mercedes and lexuses and what not while living in lucrative houses at the taxpayers expense are now telling us they need more taxpayers money to bail them out.

Anonymous said...

I didn't realize you were going back 3 years right before the price of oil was beginning to really rise. You might have seen the gas tax cut, but then the legislature raised the GRT and that is a percent of the wholesale price which as the price goes up the tax increase. The times have changed greatly since gas was 1 dollar a gallon. I have no problem paying a gas tax that is set dollar figure, but this percent of the whole sale price is wrong. I also would not have a problem if we actually used the money for what it is intend, transportation.

A little more background on the CT's 2nd Gas Tax.

In 2005, the gross receipts tax was 5% but the Transportation Initiative that passed the General Assembly that year and signed by Governor Rell (passed unanimously) included a series of increases to the gross receipts tax. The first increase moved the tax to 5.8% in 2005, then to 6.3% in 2006, up to 7% in 2007 and the next one will take place on July 1, 2008, unless the legislature suspends it during next week's special session.

At the time, supporters of the Transportation Initiative said the expanded gross receipts tax was needed to help pay for the costs associated with the Transportation Initiative.

However, what was left out of that explanation was that less than half of the revenue from the expanded gross receipts tax actually goes to pay for transportation projects and costs.

The majority of the money raised by the gross receipts tax goes into the General Fund or to pay for non-transportation costs.

Since FY2003 - more than $100 million in fuel tax revenue - A YEAR - has been used for general government programs. At the pace gas prices are rising more than $400 million dollars of next year's general fund budget will be paid for by gas taxes.

This week, Governor Rell did a 180 on her position on whether to cancel the increase scheduled for July 1, 2008, but first she said that she would ony support a cancellation of the next increase if the Legislature identified $25 million in additional cuts to the budget.
This is from the CT blog New Junkie posted back in June 2008

According to OPM, OFA and the Comptroller's Office the gross receipts tax WILL BRING IN AT LEAST $53 MILLION MORE THEN EXPECTED THIS YEAR!

This means that the amount being deposited into the General Fund will be at least $188 million this year and probably more since even that number is as of about May 1st (and gas prices have continued to climb since then).

So even if gas prices don't increase at all from this point forward - the most basic and simplistic assessment reveals that in FY 09 (the next fiscal year), the General Fund will not receive the $311 million (that was projected last June) but will actually receive well over $410 million.

If the state does not suspend the gross receipts tax increase on July 1, 2008, the state will not be getting $25 million more (as the Governor claimed) but the state will get at least $100 million or more in next year's budget!

EVEN IF THE STATE DOES CANCEL THE JULY 1 INCREASE - THE STATE WILL RECEIVE AT LEAST $75 MILLION MORE - THREE TIMES THE INCREASE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENT BUDGET DOCUMENT.

One argument is that high gas prices are good because they force people to cut back on fuel consumption. While there is merit in the argument, to be fair - especially to lower and middle income families - the gas tax should be a national tax, not a state tax and mass transit options should be available to people who can not afford the increased costs.

The CT approach provides neither of these items. A gas tax - is by its very nature - regressive - failing to take into consideration one's ability to pay.

Unfortunately, now that gas prices include this regressive tax, it is very difficult, perhaps impossible to lower the price by removing the tax since distributors and gas stations would likely keep most if not all the savings that would come from actually lowering the tax.

However, what the state can and SHOULD do it cap the gross receipts tax at its present dollar level or shift the tax from a percent of the wholesale prices to a flat rate tax so that, at the very least, Connecticut's 2nd gas tax no longer grows automatically with the increasing costs of gasoline.

Finally, the state should develop and begin a phased shift of the existing gas tax funds from the general fund to the transportation fund and focus those dollars on the expansion of mass transit so working people have an option to the present over-dependence on automobiles.

Anonymous said...

We could argue 8:40 forever but if your so smart and long winded which you are , why don't you stop hiding and run ?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for saying I was smart, long winded is because you asked for proof and proof can't be shown in just a short response. Please notice I never once called you a name, just tried to prove my point. As to running I would like to, but right now I am struggling to make ends meet like everybody else, so I just do not have time to take on a campaign. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and argue my point. Why don't you run?

Anonymous said...

Don't stop too fast Ron , You know where Jill is!

Anonymous said...

9:32 Anybody can argue their point anonomously as you can see on here. So don't take it personal. But if you dish it out expect to take get it back like the phony republican snipers on here.

Anonymous said...

9:32 Your proof doesn't mean anything. You're only a voice in the wind! LMAO

Anonymous said...

What a great "Union " endorsement. Oh I forgot you don't critisize your own .

Anonymous said...

C'mon you hypocrites she is endorsed by a "Union". You jerls really are phony.