Toni - At best, you get only partial credit. Government has no business to "diversify industry into technology, pharmaceuticals, medicine, energy, digital and information technologies". When government picks and chooses what industries should be in the private market everyone loses. Government needs to restructure, remove impediments and create an environment that makes companies and citizens want to stay or move here. If done properly, the free market will dictate what types of companies and industries do so. Government, especially here in CT, can't even manage its own affairs, let alone those of the private sector. The less government does the better. View Comment

A waste of $640,000 and all Redding will get out of it is one ugly bridge ill-suited for the rural town in which it is located. Lets hope the state, in its one size fits all infinite wisdom, puts up the chain link fence barriers too to prevent no one from jumping or falling off the bridge. Talk about solving a problem that doesn't exist. Are there no other bridges in the state that are in a state of disrepair of a higher priority? No wonder the state budget looks the way it does! View Comment

picasso - It isn't fanatical to point out the facts that criminals and mentally disturbed persons don't care what the law says and that these laws will do nothing to protect the cops you profess to support. Most cops want criminals, once caught, to be put away not put in the revolving door justice system these same politicians and bleeding heart liberals allow to exist. Keeping offenders who use guns and repeat offenders behind bars is the most assured way to protect the police and everyone else and you won't find a single cop that disagrees. Likewise identifying the mentally ill and addressing treatment in a serious way will save lives. Law abiding citizens are not out shooting the police. So this law will require them to jump through a few more bureaucratic hoops, which because they follow the law they will do, but criminals and those intent on doing harm won't so what do they really accomplish? Isn't the goal to have a meaningful result or is it simply to have another law on the books? As required by the law, the police were told 1 month in advance of the Colorado shootings that the shooter had homicidal thoughts. It will be interesting to learn what, if anything, they did with that information. If acted upon properly at least 12 people would still be alive today so whomever dropped the ball should be held to account. View Comment

No more foolish than those who think these gun laws will prevent the mentally ill and criminals from doing harm to others. The intent, which you apparently didn't grasp, was to demonstrate that you can't legislate away problems if you don't address the real issues. Of course its not the water, its the deranged mothers. But taking these anti-gun arguments to their logical conclusion to eliminate the over 2,000 accidental child drownings per year and those whom are murdered by drowning we need to eliminate bathtubs and limit the amount of water anyone can have at any one time. Of course that is absurd but so too is thinking that the new gun regulations will help. The real lesson from Newtown was not that there aren't enough laws on the books but that those that are inclined to violate them will find ways to do so. Those that are mentally troubled don't care what the law says. This feel good, let's not hurt anyone's feelings, everything is bullying, everyone is the same approach has got to stop because it runs contrary to reality and facilitates the failure to recognize and address those individuals that have problems or intend to do harm to others. If I thought for a second that these new laws would actually decrease the likelihood of another Newtown from happening then I would support it. Sadly it does not. Instead, it is nothing more than one politician trying to outdo his neighboring governor in the false hope that somehow he too can be a national political figure. View Comment

Let's ban water next: http://unioneagle.com/2013/04/sheriff-woman-drowned-children-killed-self/ http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/03/5313827/la-woman-charged-in-kids-drowning.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates View Comment

The only ones that "won" are those states that will benefit from the jobs related to the gun industry leaving Connecticut. There is zero, nothing in this bill that would have stopped Newtown from happening. Sadly, lessons that could have been learned were missed or given short shrift all in a rush for "feel good" legislation. When this fails to stop the mentally ill and criminals from killing others then what? Am I surprised that the same dopes that repealed the death penalty, i.e. punish those that commit the crimes to the fullest extent the law allows, screwed this up too? Nope, I've come to expect incompetence from those we've elected. Shame on us and shame on them. View Comment

So when this does nothing to stop criminals and others seeking to do harm will these same politicians be held accountable for wasting time, taxpayer money and forcing yet more dubious regulations down the throats of law abiding citizens? Teachers better beware as not only do you have to learn how to teach but now it appears you may be held accountable if you are "trained" to spot mental illness and fail to do so. View Comment

Why not publish the cost to buy and maintain (both maintenance and taxes) as part of the "study" too. Most likely because doing so doesn't fit the narrative. This and other papers do a disservice publishing an article like this as it really doesn't inform anyone of anything of substance. View Comment

When facts are not on your side all you are left with is name calling. Jim J is simply taking his cue from MSNBC and the President and many others on the extreme left. If the facts don't work for you try to demonize anyone that gets in your way to discourage them from pointing out the facts. Unfortunately for that strategy doesn't discourage everyone so it fails over the long-term. Even Bill Maher is beginning to see the light: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-maher-taxes-too/2013/03/17/id/495069 View Comment

If it made economic sense for a company to relocate here and the environment justified doing so then they would do so on their own. On top of that, if the State is going this route then why not pay to relocate in areas that are depressed to bring them back - why pay taxpayer monies to move companies to cities that are already doing well. Is Malloy so shortsighted that all he's concerned about is how Stamford is doing? I thought he was Governor and not still Mayor. If I were Danbury or Bridgeport or New Haven or even Hartford then this would make my stomach turn. View Comment

I guess you forgot about who's passed the budgets that created this mess and it started long before Rell. She, Rowland and all the others deserve equal blame or in your parlance "credit" for the great state of our economy and fiscal health. View Comment

Hmmm 48% approve - that figure sounds awfully familiar..... View Comment

The poll on the statehouse shows how out of touch the people responding to the poll are - who do they think is running the State House and making all the pitiful decisions that have led this state to the condition it is in? Its not the Republicans - they have little or no say in anything that gets done. The poll should ask if the responders even know which party is in charge. View Comment

Will one of these billionaires please stand up and help fund a major redevelopment and future funding for the Beardsley Park Zoo. It is a beautiful property in an area that could use a lot of investing and SW CT could use a first class attraction to take kids to. The Zoo presently does the best it can with what it has but could do so much more with the financial help and leadership these folks could offer. View Comment

They will not be armed. Fewer students but the budget going up. The roof needs tons of work 1.5 -1.8 million and a vote for an artificial turf field and improvements $2.8 million is going to to to a ballot. We may need to make some improvements but we don't need an artificial turf field just because other local towns made the foolish decision to install one. View Comment

Maybe Nick Cobb wants the government tracking his every move but a lot of folks don't. His idea is also flawed in that only CT drivers would pay the charge and out of states would travel on CT highways for free, how does that make sense? One thing he got right is pensions and healthcare are in large measure responsible for the situation the state is in. Unfortunately, with Obamacare getting ready to kick in and with no real effort to reduce the size of state government neither is going to get fixed anytime soon. CT has the highest per capita debt ratio in the entire nation. We are in worse fiscal shape than California on a per person basis. No wonder companies don't won't to stay or move here and families, if they can sell their homes, are leaving. View Comment

Just another way for politicians to spend more money. If anyone believes that reinstalling tolls will not simply result in ever more spending out of Hartford then I have a bridge to sell you. View Comment

First I'm not a "right winger" but to reply to your list of accomplishments: 1) We are on the verge of an economic collapse just like Greece but let's keep printing and spending money we don't have 2) We are still in those wars and Obama expanded one, we have troops in Africa and let's not forget about the big Libyan success. I gather you believe the Taliban weren't in Afghanistan and they didn't attack the WTC? 3) The best health care system in the world you mean that one? The one that people travel here to be treated under? The one that costs since Obama passed his plan have skyrocketed to largest % growths ever? Is that the one? 4) Auto Industry - is that the same bailout that will cost taxpayers near $35 billion plus in losses - is that the one? 5) You mean the largest expansion ever of DHS including the power to search your computer and belongings w/o warrant up to 100 miles from the border - you mean that Obama DHS? 6) You mean they got bin laden with the information gathered under the Bush administration 7) 911 correct - but lets not forget Benghazi 8) You mean the ones Obama closed and the others he chose to bailout with taxpayer dollars? 9) You mean the ones that ripped off consumers by telling them to sell all the while they are buying? The ones that created the financial mess with the help of banking rules passed in the Clinton Administration - call Barney Frank for the details. I'd continue but you are so far in denial there would be little in doing so. Keep believing and may the impact of your vote be felt directly within your home and family. View Comment

But Obama did close Guantanamo, oh no, that's right he only said he was going to and then didn't. Much like he said he would balance the budget in his first four years, and that if he spent $2.3 trillion in "stimulus" on "shovel ready jobs" that unemployment would be under 7% and that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and that he won't waterboard anyone, but he will kill them with a drone and that etc. etc. etc. View Comment

As if this should come as a surprise to anyone. You get what you vote for and this is what we get, that and no job growth and a booming deficit. View Comment