I got a story ain’t got no morals (let the bad guy win every once in a while)

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

This is a very interesting piece on a lot of levels.

The story itself is one I have not read elsewhere. Did we know the FBI fanned out in two-person teams and ambushed all these people before they could coordinate stories?

The amusing underside to that is that coordinating stories would entail having some capacity to explain, in a linear way, what has really has transpired. I don’t think anybody at the General Assembly knows that, most of the time. In fact, I love Widlitz’s quote:

“It is difficult to explain to the FBI who more or less logically go from point A to point B to point C about the legislative process, which goes round and round in circles,” she said. “Sometimes it makes no sense to anybody in the outside world.”

There’s a kind of salute to Fellini, Joni Mitchell and Billy Preston all in one statement.

You could use this mess and that statement to make an argument for reform — not just of ethics as I did in the previous post but of the legislative process itself. It ought to be a hell of a lot more comprehensible to the average person than it is.  It ought not to lend itself so readily to secrecy and shell games, so that even a person trying to follow the progress of a bill often can not.  It shouldn’t be a tale told by an idiot.

But according to that Branford Eagle piece, the RYO tobacco bill may very well get folded into the budget implementers — a blanket in a pig! The budget implementers are the first thing you would do away with if you attempted real legislative reform

As I have written once before:

Implementers are the laws that make the budget happen, but it has become a common practice to cram into them all kinds of other sneaky, oily stuff that is not subject to the normal process of public hearings.

So it is not uncommon to see, in a budget implementer, “The state shall purchase from United Technologies, for a sum of $10 million, 300 square feet of land in Danielson, which shall be converted into a Portal to Hell, jointly operated by the Department of Economic and Community Development and Satan.”

This idea will never have been discussed in open debate anywhere, and there will be no record – except oral tradition – of who put it in the bill.

So implementers are the pig.
If you think the RYO bill was worth doing, it’s a paradox if it lives on in the belly of the swine.

Now, Billy, take us out.



The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

13 thoughts on “I got a story ain’t got no morals (let the bad guy win every once in a while)

  1. End One Party Rule

    As Rome burns (Hartford) the effect of a $1.5 BILLION dollar tax increase was simple a green light to spend spend spend as the Dems in control just raise taxes again and again. We taxpayers are footing the bill for a 9 mile bus called the CTfastrack to Bankruptcy as it burns up $600 million tax dollars to build and another $20 Million tax dollars a year in “Support” so the 20 year cost is a BILLION DOLLARS….Jackson labs is getting paid $1 MILLION per jiob and if they hire 300 people 10 years from now, thay get a free building!!! Must be nice to know people….taxpayers almost had to pay $300,000 to renovate a building in New Haven that is PRIVATLY OWNED!

    Yes folks in CT, Hartford is burning up tax dollars like the supply is endless. Other states do things differently….

    The choice is clear, Unions VS. Taxpayers, in Wisconsin the Taxpayers WON! $3.5 Billion is cuts were made and a surplus was had along with tax CUTS! It can be done, the unending tax increases to support the state worker Unions does not need to happen….there is hope for the Taxpayer. Scott Walker will go down in history as the man who stood up to the Union Pressure and just said enough is enough….and survived!

    If Dannel and the Dems pay attention to the CHANGE that went on, the Taxpayers in CT would rejoice! With the coverage in the Courant to inform them, looks like the taxpayers are doomed in CT.

  2. Richard

    The RYO was an hole-in-the-wall front. The real target was AFSCME, NEA, SEIU, and SEBAC. Soucy was the warning shot. The brush back pitch. The bean ball.

    Congratulations Wisconsin for taking down the public sector union rackeeteering mob.! Never confuse union legislation with labor in modern times. Minimum wage increases indexed to 2X the poverty level, mandatory 5%401K matching, fully paid employer health vouchers, mandated 3 weeks vacations and 10 Holidays—that’s labor legislation.

    What passes for labor legislation today (public sector pork barreling) does more harm to the public good than Al Queda.

  3. Tim White

    “It ought not to lend itself so readily to secrecy and shell games”

    For all the credit and grandstanding afforded us by most politicians, there’s even more issues that fall prey to the “deny, defer, delay” game of maintaining plausible deniability.

  4. JC Strider

    Gurgle, Gurgle. Spit, Spit. The coffeemaker is grousing after being awakened to perform its duty and run out of water to hyperthermalate.

    Just a note of nag from my hickory-stick, fussy, proper-English side whom is pestered to pieces by (hmm… too much passive-agressive voice there) the use of “so” to begin an answer to a question. Since you ask many questions, receiving responses, I am presenting what I feel is a new verbal tick for your consideration.

    It may occur more in the “fat” part of the actuarial table than the, like me, not-yet-dead-but-gettin’-there “thin” part, I notice, but people start with “so” (plus a gentle pause to wink at what’s to come of depth and worth) to respond to the most prosaic of queries.
    I have a fondness for “so” as an intensifier (a more noble cousin to “such”), but as a conjuction it is a little dark.

    Webster’s says it is “used as an introductory particle often to belittle a point under discussion.” I don’t want to belabor or bedwell on this point; it’s less of a nuisance than “that’s a very interesting question” as a deflective opening for an answer. I just wish this “so” lead-in wasn’t, if you excuse my saying so, so predictable.


  5. Todd Zaino

    Scott Walker has won not once but twice
    Wisconsin tells us liberals don’t play nice
    Liberal behavior such a disgrace
    Look at the egg all over your face
    GOP should start putting the champagne on ice

  6. equality 7-2521

    Leason learned, if anyone knocks on your door at 7:00 A.M. to discuss business, invite them to meet you at your office. I’m sure Miss Manners would approve.

    What’s with this stupid jibber-jabber and parrot talk which has invaded this site? I hear more intellegence from the monkey cage at the zoo.

  7. Fuzzy Dunlop

    Here’s what I don’t get… did any real people from RYT make illegal contributions? Let’s say they didn’t, and also proceed on the premise that there was a quid pro quo, and RYT fees were killed in return for the FBI’s contributions… if that’s the case, then the FBI pretty much just spent $20,000 killing legislation that would have provided the state with hundreds of thousands of dollars in much needed tax money. Since the FBI didn’t make arrests before RYT was killed, the FBI is indirectly responsible for killing the bill and affecting public policy.

    Which brings up another disturbing issue… Larry Cafero claims the FBI told him he didn’t need to return the tainted FBI contributions to the GOP PAC. But aren’t those contributions themselves now illegal, as they are basically campaign contributions from the federal government? In essence, that money amounts to a contribution from federal taxpayers.

    There are clearly bad actors here, at the individual level. But somewhere the story that federal agents have been covertly using federal money to influence state policy has been lost. I guess they would argue that the ends (routing out campaign staff susceptible to accepting graft) justifies the means (using federal cash to squash helpful revenue raising bills).

    But who knows, maybe illegal FBI contributions will just become a new form of public campaign financing.

Comments are closed.