New Haven Independent

Posted by: Drop the Hammer | November 5, 2008 12:29 PM

Well said Henry!
It truly is a great day for America.

I'm still not sure why we have to fly the Mexican flag on the New Haven green though.

Posted by: darkness descends | November 5, 2008 1:04 PM

Being in touch with the business world here in Connecicut, this has been a very disturbing day. Three small businesses (businesses with between $2 Million and $20 Million in revenue, and who employ between 20 and 90 people) with whom I am associated have taken the following actions based upon the election results

Company 1: Has instituted a hiring freeze - even though they currently have three openings due to people who have moved on to other jobs.

Company 2: Spent the morning in managment meetings planing to outsource a major part of their product line and then lay off about 20% of their workforce that was associated with the local manufacturing.

Company 3: Has announcd that they will be delaying, indefinately, a major new product line roll out.

The recent economic problems had been affecting each of these businesses but they had plans to address them that will be crushed by the new taxes and regulations that are promised by the next administration.

The mood in the business community is very dark and although it willl likely take a few months until the full affects are felt, the new government set up is absolutely going to punish the working class in the long run. All this is perpetrated by people who voted this year to "make history" rather than to elect the most effective candidate.

The great Martin Luther King had a dream that one day people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Based upon the results of the 2008 election, that day has not yet arrived.

Posted by: ASL | November 5, 2008 2:19 PM

Darkness:

Having started a successful small business in the early eighties and having run that business through the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years, my father has taken to pointing out that it doesn't much matter that taxes are (marginally) lower if you're not making any money. Needless to say, amidst the financial wreckage unleashed by the Bush administration, he has been an ardent Obama supporter from day one.

Posted by: Deuce | November 5, 2008 3:29 PM

Henry writes: "...bigots who tried to assassinate our new President"

Trying to rewrite history Henry? They were bigots indeed, but there was no such attempt. It was just trash talk.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/obama-assassination-plot_n_121293.html

"the Associated Press reports that the men were no "true" threat to Obama".

"U.S. Attorney Troy Eid (EYED) describes the men as "meth heads" who weren't capable of such an attack".

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 5, 2008 3:39 PM

I'm not speaking for Henry, but I suspect that he might be alluding to this more recent, and far more serious plot:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 5, 2008 4:04 PM

Deuce,

Thanks for pointing out the facts. I was scratching my head when I read Henry's trumped up account of a failed assassination, but I didn't want to add a third ass to the mispeak.

Posted by: What are you talking about? | November 5, 2008 4:23 PM

There have been multiple threats on Obama's life. You have mentioned one. The federal government takes public credit for stopping at least one other a few weeks ago:

http://www.huliq.com/2623/71531/atf-stops-assassination-attempt-obama

You may want to use google more effectively in the future.

Posted by: robn | November 5, 2008 5:24 PM

DD,

If consumers don't have money in their pockets, they won't be spending it on goods and services and, as ASL has pointed out, businesses will be far sorrier when demand dries up. FDR knew this and thats why he and his first chairman of the FED (Mariner Eccles....a conservative mormon Republican by the way) adhered to Keynsianism...smart spending on productive infrastructure and stimulation of growth by fostering a middle class with progressive tax rates.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 5, 2008 7:41 PM

Two good op-ed pieces in the WSJ can explain most successful businessperson's fears of the Democratic platform.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584345511799173.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

Personally, I am going to give my President all the faith and support I can, though his campaign promises scare me. Even in his acceptance speech last night, he admitted that change might not occur in his first term due to what he is up against. Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=acceptance%20speech&st=cse&oref=slogin
In these times, a good policy decision could become a great one, and a poor choice could become devastating.

As far as Keynsian economics, they might have worked in the past, but the situation was much different than today. Currently there is massive personal and governmental debt, and during FDR's term government debt was miniscule percentage-wise to what our gov't has borrowed today. FDR had to take on more gov't debt to get this country out of its malaise. That is not the situation today. Moreover, if many of these new projects are begun they will lead to much higher taxes on the middle and upper tax brackets creating a vicious Catch-22.

Trying to make yesterday's solutions work in today's world is not an acceptable remedy. Nor is putting our country further into debt with short-term remedies such as stimulus packages that are financed through personal income taxes or gov't issued bonds which must be repaid or replaced at a future date. At least with the ill-conceived bailout, it was secured by real estate holdings, of which 95% are relatively secure making it highly probable that we, the taxpayers, will see a positive return on this investment.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 5, 2008 8:58 PM

What are you talking about???

In the case you cite (William Kurtz, too), these bigots "were charged with possessing an unregistered firearm and conspiracy to steal from a licensed gun dealer". Notice the charge is conspiracy, not attempted murder (of a presidential candidate).

Posted by: hurtz | November 5, 2008 9:37 PM

Henry, is it my imagination or are you trying to draw parallels between you and Obama with the story about grandma in Arkansas??? Are you for real?

Posted by: Geez | November 5, 2008 9:41 PM

Henry:

Thank you for writing such a poignant and personal story that captures this historic moment. Too bad some of the hater bloggers on this website are too busy licking their wounds to "savor America the Beautiful."

Posted by: What the? | November 5, 2008 10:14 PM

Does anyone doubt that these guys are bigots and they wanted to kill the president? What kind of nutjob debates this sort of thing?

Today, they were indicted:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/05/obama.plot.indictment/

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 6, 2008 10:01 AM

Bill Saunders and Decue, it's disingenuous to suggest that these two men were charged 'only' with 'unregistered possession' and 'conspiracy to steal.'

The evidence seems very clear that they had formed a credible plot to murder 100 people, more or less at random based on their race. The evidence also seems clear that they had a sincere, if far-fetched, objective to murder a presidential candidate.

Even the most casual watcher of Law & Order knows that when people are arrested in complicated cases, they're charged with what's needed to hold them and then additional charges are filed once the investigation is complete.

So why don't you cut the author a little slack? Isn't it a little petty to pick on his use of the word 'tried?' Maybe 'plotted' would be more precise, but even so; do you have any substantive criticism?

If the teeth on the comb you're going to use to pick through a piece by a non-professional writer are that fine, perhaps you should set your sights on winning one of those mugs Paul gives out for finding typos.

Posted by: Deuce | November 6, 2008 11:21 AM

"Does anyone doubt that these guys are bigots and they wanted to kill the president"?

No. I agreed that they were bigots in my original post. But I also doubt that these losers were even capable of swatting a fly.

Posted by: DJ Mixmaster | November 6, 2008 1:00 PM

OBAMA SOLD OUT TO WHITEY!

Posted by: robn | November 6, 2008 1:02 PM

DD,
Good point about national debt as a percentage of GDP. Its was much lower in FDR's day...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Debt_GDP.png

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm

...i think that the biggest challenge of our generation is to determine what taxation is fair for all so that we can pay for roads, schools, etc...FDR demanded that wealthy individuals pay a higher tax rate than poorer individuals. Over the last 60 years that has been whittled away and our rates are very unprogressive today. This is a product of the big conservative myth that the rugged individual earns his/her income in a vaccuum instead of in a larger society to which a debt is owed.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 6, 2008 3:25 PM

ROBN,

I agree with you to a point. I do have a responsibility to my fellow man, but within limitations. My income is made within a vacuum in that I control what I earn. As a local example, the poor manner in which New Haven has been governed affects me to my detriment, not to my advantage, yet I bear the burden of taxes (on my home and business) to help those less fortunate while paying my fair and proportionate share. I also give a fair percentage to charity, recognizing that I am more fortunate than others.

I do not need the federal or state government to mismanage my money in their feeble attempts at social justice. Nor am I responsible for those persons who made bad choices that have affected us all. No one told me to buy a house that I could not afford, or refinance to put a luxury car in my drive way. Yet the bailout was due to protecting institutions that purchased the loans created by such greed.

Appearing rich is not the American way, its a fool's way. The American dream is to work hard and prosper, and not be penalized by too progressive a tax that it gives disincentive to work or for success. I believe, but could be wrong, that a greater percentage of wealth was captured by taxes under the old flat tax system that Reagan abolished than with the progressive tax currently in existence. The top 1% can afford tax attorneys and advice that none of us can dream about.

A truly fair system would employ a flat tax that has a minimum threshold in that those making under a certain amount would not have to pay any income taxes, but that those less fortunate received the aid necessary for living. When I see someone driving an Escalade after paying for their groceries with EBTs, it tells me that something is inherently wrong with the system, and that punishing me with higher taxes is not going to correct it.

Posted by: robn | November 6, 2008 5:45 PM

DD,

Forget for a moment about taxation, and think about tax distribution....A big part of why CT is struggling is becuase of crass crony capitalism.....GWB and his Republican Congress shoveled an unfair amount of our federal tax dollars to other states (specifically red states). CT get $0.64 back for every dollar paid.
North Dakota, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas all get upwards of $1.50 for every tax dollar paid.

Hows that for fair?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 6, 2008 6:21 PM

William Kurtz,

I would cut Henry a little more slack, but he is smart man, a good writer, a past public figure, a current activist, and should know word choice is important.

Frankly, I also winced a little during Obama's victory speech, when he brought up the 106 year-old voter, who was born one generation after slavery. Bad math, or purposeful misrepresentation to make a grander point.

The victory speaks for itself, there is no need to start making stuff up.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 6, 2008 6:31 PM

ROBN,

I agree completely with you on that. There is something terribly wrong when the federal gov't does not reward the states that pay the most revenue. For too long cronyism and pork have destroyed propriety and fairness in politics. I frankly am hopeful that our new President can rise above it and keep Congress somewhat in check. If he goes line by line, then hopefully we will start seeing some of our money return to this State.

I am one of those people who think that Congress is more to blame in the bad times than a President. They also deserve more credit when things go well, but most of us can't remember that far back.

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 6, 2008 10:06 PM

You're still nitpicking, and to what end? In my book, by the time you've hatched a plot, posed for pictures on your myspace page with automatic weapons, shot out a church window and drawn the attention of the federal authorities, you've 'tried' hard enough for Mr. Fernandez to use the word. It's a singularly pathetic attempt, to be sure, but look at those two clowns.

As far as Obama's victory speech, here's the relevant Oxford English Dictionary entry for the word 'generation'"

5. The whole body of individuals born about the same period; also, the time covered by the lives of these. In reckoning historically by 'generations', the word is taken to mean the interval of time between the birth of the parents and that of their children, usually computed at thirty years, or three generations to a century.

Slavery was legal in the United States until the end of the Civil War, in 1865. So yeah, 41 years is a little bit of a stretch by the OED's definition, but 'generation' is as much a term of art as science. I know lots of people in their forties with no children yet, so in their case, a generation will be comfortably greater than 41 years.

The larger point of the essay still stands--that Mr. Fernandez was born into a world very different than the one in which he lives now. I'm not sure where the hyperbole comes from ("trumped up account of a failed assassination" or "trying to rewrite history?"). I don't know Henry Fernandez at all, so if there's some simmering resentment that makes people want to discredit his every word, maybe the affected parties should just air or forget about it.

Posted by: ROBN | November 7, 2008 5:07 PM

DD,

Andy Bromage wrote a good piece in the Advocate this week about pregrossive taxation within our state borders. Simply raising taxes by 0.5% on those making over $200,000 will eliminate half of ourone billion dollar deficit.

http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10452

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't also be careful about spending, but the inequity in taxation is pretty bad.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 10, 2008 11:57 AM

ROBN,

I saw the article and have to agree with his point. If something progressive, such as .5% for $200-250; .75% for 250-500 and 1% for those making over $500,000, then we might have a chance to keep property taxes at their current levels. Otherwise, I don't know where the money is going to come from. Thanks for the info.

DD