Woodstock CT Café

By Frank Corden  (in response to Newcomer)

I would agree that a key role of federal government is to maintain security. As such, the military, homeland security and federal coordination of the state militia’s (National Guard) are appropriately funded at the national level.

With regard to entitlements, these really fall into two separate categories in my mind. Those programs with eligibility prior to “retirement” and those benefits that are intended to supplement retirement. I also agree with you that those individuals who are committed to a lifetime of infirmity should be cared for. That’s a basic obligation.

Other programs such as welfare, food stamps, AFDC and to a lesser degree unemployment compensation, a safety net seems appropriate. But, all safety nets must have time limits and reasonable benefit limits. These programs should not be lifelong entitlements. I believe the efforts enacted during the Clinton/Gingrich period improved the situation. More can and should be done to require folks to get off the public rolls.

However, we need to be cognizant of the working poor. It’s amazing to me that a PFC in the Army (and the equivalent in the other services) who may be married or have children makes so little money that he/she qualifies for food stamps. We need to recognize and reward people who are willing to work with a livable wage. That means an individual who is working at least full-time (or maybe even more than full-time should be the bar) should be able to feed themselves, clothe themselves, put a roof over their head, and pay for basic healthcare. Families should be expected to have the equivalent of two wage earners. We need to reward work and not make it more financially attractive to be on an entitlement rather than to work.

I agree that we should be relying on the private sector for most goods and services. But it needs to be an intelligently regulated private sector. The “Reagan Revolution” may have unleashed competitive capitalism but I believe we have gone too far as evidenced by the current economic situation.

Not that the housing bubble created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t contribute, it did. Still the unbridled gambling of the banking sector and the failure of the regulators to notice was the underlying cause. Having someone generate a mortgage without having to live with the financial penalties of default removes any sense of accountability. Hence the need for regulation to assure good practices or laws to prohibit the disassociation of short term profit from long term consequences.

Your comment on the government identifying the 3 or 5 best performing health insurers begs and a key question. By what measure do you judge “best performing”. It really isn’t the performance of the insurers we should be concerned about, but rather the best performing providers.

As a nation, we spend more per capita on health care and have one of the worst performing systems in the “first” world. Read the rest of this entry »

from Frank Corden

My approach to governance comes directly from my experience in the private sector. Good performance and success in the market place warrant further investment not less. Over the years that Dr. Baran has led the Woodstock Public schools performance in fact improved. Last year, WPS was the best performing school district in Windham County as measured by performance and when compared to cost, easily the most effective and efficient. More bang for each dollar spent per student.

In business, you define the job you are trying to do and then commit the funds necessary to do it well. Unfortunately, in Woodstock as in many other towns, the community at large has failed to clearly define the job of education.

Is it strictly classroom instruction of the 3 R’s?
Where does funding infrastructure for science and technology education fall on the priority list?
What about other non-core areas such as music and physical education?
How about athletics, should they be part of the school budget?
What about academically oriented after school programs as mentioned above (History Day, Science Fair, Public Speaking etc.)?
Do after school buses and extra help sessions for struggling students belong in our priorities?
What about services for students with physical or learning disabilities?
Do we have as great a responsibility to support the full potential of gifted students compared to students with disabilities?

Each of these spending areas has it’s advocates. Read the rest of this entry »

from Newcomer

I’m slow to reply to your question (see “Re: Tough Times Ahead”) because it’s so thought-provoking. Our nation was formed some 234 years ago and one would think that this question would have been answered at the outset. But as we’ve ‘evolved’ (if that’s the correct word) we’ve added more states, more people, more industry, more infrastructure, more politicians, etc.

I think for me, what makes your question so difficult to answer is that in these 234 years, we have blurred the lines ourselves as to the proper role of our government. That role was generally initially defined in the preamble of the Constitution, the purpose of which was “in order to form a more perfect Union”. The goals and “mission statement” of our federal government were to “establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty…”

If you take that piece by piece, there’s quite a bit there. I think most citizens would agree that we still have a legitimate need for our Federal government to provide for our National defense. We can dissect the hows and how much of the defense system, of course, but I think we would all agree on the continuing need for it to remain in place.

Ensuring domestic tranquility….I’m not sure what the founding fathers exactly intended by this phrase, but to me it speaks to the need at the State and local governmental level (since we’ve now added more states than the original 13 we started with) for basic public services such as police enforcement and fire protection. How tranquil can one’s life be if subjected to crime or fire? If we want to expand this notion of tranquility to the Federal level, then I could see an argument for FEMA to exist in times of disaster relief. I guess this would also make a case for militia at a State level, such as the National Guard, enforcement at a State level, such as a State police Dept., disaster relief at a State level as an outpost of FEMA at the federal level. I could also see highway infrastructure coming under this category at all 3 levels of government because vehicles are available for purchase in the private market for those who have the financial means. But vehicle ownership requires someplace on which to safely operate the vehicle. I would limit the role to infrastructure maintenance though. To me, this should not include a nationalization of public transit be it planes, trains, buses, monorails, subways, ferries – whatever. None of these other modes of transport are a requirement for one to live a life of domestic tranquility so they can and should be provided by the private sector and each citizen can choose to avail themselves of any given method as their means and circumstance (and personal preferance) dictate. Read the rest of this entry »

from John

What could be a better indicator of a recovering economy? Timber harvesting.

We are seeing this on Barber Road in Woodstock and on Storrs Road in Tolland. The two graphs at the bottom are showing that both white pine and fuel wood are coming back. You can get as much as $15 a cord for fuel wood. We recommend Don Dubois of Brooklyn as the Forester (Masters Degree from Yale in Forest Management) who marks the trees and manages the harvest. He works with John Trowbridge, a local logger. This is a clean, professional operation that improves the forest by removal of older and diseased trees.

The pictures below were taken on Barber Road yesterday at dusk. The first picture is white pine harvested as saw timber for construction lumber.
Read the rest of this entry »

from Kevin E. Ford

Regarding editorial policy, I do think that it is an important discussion because it is one of the most crucial factors to consider when deciding what type of media site you want to be. I believe that the reason why the Cafe’s policies appear to be going back and forth is because to some extent they are as the owners receive different advice on what their editorial policy should be. At the end of the day one important thing for a media outlet’s credibility is the notification, constancy and consistent application of the editorial policy.

To this end, this is the best advice I can give living in the industry is to consider the mission and vision for the site in three particular areas; 1) what type of content do you want (logical discussion, free for all, political debate, educational issues, family memories, this doesn’t mean they have to be mutually exclusive but some items may be), 2) who and how many do you want contributing content (creators and critics) and 3) who and how many do you want reading the content (spectators). It is important to realize that for the second and third questions it is unrealistic to just say everyone because no matter what editorial policy you choose, including no editorial policy, you will be attracting and repelling different groups.

Once a mission and vision is articulated, including those three areas, you can design an editorial policy. The editorial policy should, of course, be designed to directly support that mission and vision. Luckily the Café doesn’t have a profit component so makes this much easier to consider as an entire set of stakeholders is gone. I’ll list out a few of the areas of contention on the Café’s editorial policy as of late and how they impact those three things I mentioned.

Profanity. I mention this because there has been a fair amount of it introduced to the Café recently. This goes back to the questions of whom do you want to contribute and who to you want to read the site. The profanity question is very important to the later. Do you want parents to read this site and just as importantly be comfortable allowing their children to? The decision to allow profanity will have a real impact on who will be reading the content. There is a technological component to this as well as parents increasingly are utilizing filtering tools to protect their children; there is a very real possibility this site might end up blocked by those tools if it contains profanity.

Personal Insults. This really ties into all three. Abusive debate attracts certain people as contributors and repels others. It also helps determine what type of content will be created in the first place. A poster had mentioned that anyone is free to just skip such posts but there is a different result in practical application. What actually tends to happen in practice is that individuals do not decide to read or not read certain posts on a case by case basis, they eventually move on or off the media site as a whole. Human nature is what it is. Read the rest of this entry »

from Anonymous

That anecdote about the $100 circulating through a small town is – as one blogger observed – in part about velocity. How fast money moves through the economy is a partial measure of how well the economy is functioning. 

The anecdote is also an illustration of what economists call the “circular flow.”
Circular flow can be reduced to a simple chart that illustrates how money travels in a (theoretical) circle throughout the economy.
- Consumers pay for what they get;
- The storekeeper uses that money to pay the manufacturer for his store stock;
- The manufacturer uses the money to pay for his equipment, his raw materials, and the talent that made it;
- and along the way, everyone is using some of the money to pay employees… who take their paycheck home and … spend it on consumer goods and services.

Circular flow also works the other direction; read the little story backwards to see how goods and services move in a circle too.

There are lots of visual charts for this (go to google images and type in “circular flow”). Some are simple, most add in government, usually placed in the center of the circular diagram (because money flows to the government from all quarters as tax payments, and services flow out from the government to all quarters). Some diagrams get very complex by adding in the role of banks, others add annotations for “leakage” (money that goes out of the system because Aunt Tillie stores it in her mattress or Billy dropped his lunch money down the storm drain or all those coins are gathering dust in odd corners around the house). But however much elaborated, the basic idea remains one of money moving around the circle in one direction, in exchange for goods and services that move around the circle in the other direction.

The reader who thought the anecdote was just a tired old internet joke … was right; it is. But perhaps he didn’t recognize it as an illustration of Circular Flow, deliberately oversimplified for a touch of humor (yeah, rather dry humor at best, but economists aren’t known for their humor, are they).

from Frank Corden

Independent, Taxpayer, Con and all others who seem to be routinely participating in a number of thoughtful discussions, I’d like to tee one up that flows from Independent’s comment above regarding a few tough years ahead.

Clearly, we need to get our state and federal budgets under control. As we look at the approach of the Reagan Republicans (and as most recently championed by the Tea Party activist), abandoning regulation hasn’t served us very well. Their collective cry for “smaller government” is too simplistic. There appears to be this sense that by starving government for funds, government will get better.

Rather it seems that a cash poor government is generally headed to becoming a poor government. Case in point, starving the regulatory arms of the SEC, the bank regulators and the food safety inspectors hasn’t made us any richer or safer.

Organizational behavior virtually guarantees a poor outcome. When organizations are starved for resources, in the absence of VERY STRONG leadership, the organizations don’t try to limit what they do, but rather peanut-butter the resources across as many of their previous activities as possible. The result is that the organization tries to “do it all” but instead does it all poorly.

If we are going to reduce government spending and still have well run programs that protect the health and safety of our citizens and the financial future of our country, what we need to do is to settle on the appropriate priorities for government at each level, federal, state and local. Then be rigorous about holding to those priorities.

So, the question I pose for discussion is, “what are the appropriate rolls for the federal government” and “what should we shut down”. In each case of the do’s and don’ts, I like to discuss what rationale we would use to justify the recommendation.

from Frank Corden

So to the point, the only position you (WVG) have mentioned that I took that is contrary to your views has to do with Woodstock Academy. You stipulated to items, one that I supported the efforts of the BoE chair to propose legislation changing the statutory status of WA. The second is a general point regarding WA’s budget actions having a detrimental impact on the K-8 programs.

I was not involved or knowledgable of the chair’s action regarding meeting with State legislators. Further, I don’t recall Sherrie Vogt’s name ever being mentioned during the BoE meetings. With that said, I do believe that the governance of WA is structure in a manner that makes it unresponsive to the needs of Woodstock, the largest sending town. If a change in the statutory status or governance structure of WA is a means to that end, I certainly would seriously consider supporting it.

With respect to the second point, I do believe that the budgetary actions of Woodstock Academy have had detrimental impacts on the K-8 system. The education budget is of a fixed size as defined by the Board of Finance. When tuition for Woodstock students to attend Woodstock Academy increases substantially and those increases aren’t adequately addressed by the budget imposed by the Board of Finance, Woodstock Public Schools takes the hit.

In 4 of the 6 years I served this community on the Board of Education, unjustifiable increases in the WA budget directly resulted in cuts in staff and programs at Woodstock Elementary School and Woodstock Middle School. Read the rest of this entry »

from Independent

Once again, Anon makes an important point about the core workings of our economy. When I was in college, my professor took the class to Sturbridge Village to make this same point. Like the little town in Texas, it is a microcosm of the broader economy.

Economists call this concept the “Velocity” of the money supply – the speed at which money moves through the economy is as important as the total supply of money in the economy. So, “Moneterists” traditionally believed modulation of the cash supply is a sufficient tool to expand or contract growth in the economy, as needed, depending on its Velocity.

“Fiscalists” or “Keynesians” traditionally believed that it is the total amount of spending that matters, and that growth must be modulated through the expansion or contraction of government spending.

The “ISLM Framework” resolved this theoretical divide in the 1960’s, providing a hybrid theoretical framework that accommodates both concepts. This common ground was generally supported by both sides.

What changed beginning in the 1980’s was the rise of classical economists and their theory of pure free market principles to the securities markets; i.e., the belief that all security prices were by definition priced correctly in an open market. The theoretical work of these academics was picked up by key players in the capital markets and politicians and policymakers who favored government deregulation. This became the basis for deregulation of the financial markets and the failure to regulate new financial instruments like derivatives. Read the rest of this entry »

from John 

WVG, Your persistence in your last comment about having been here before jogged my memory. I like the way you make things up as you go along. It wasn’t four years ago as you suggested in one of your first comments (maybe just a smoke screen). It was more recently that you graced the Cafe with your presence and inimitable style (I hope I spelled that correctly ). Since you are using a pseudonym now, we will leave your identity at that. You were wrong on the four year span between your two strings of commentary; no, it was not before we came out of the closet; no, you did not use pseudonyms; no, you weren’t banned; no you are not a valley girl; and yes we put you in wackety rants  for two comments … and “biblion” and “gmx” are prevocative to say the least. As for use of Siberia or Wackity Rants, our friend Con has straighten me out about that practice. It was also interesting that Ernie came back to the Cafe when you did, but that may be just a coincidence. As I said earlier, you are very entertaining and we like to be entertained. Readers sometime forget but the Cafe never forgets.

During your last visit (a couple of years ago), I had the distinct feeling that you were on a mission on behalf of someone else more local or a particular group with a political agenda. As you are from another town, why would you lower yourself to unproductive activity like blogging in Woodstock. I sort of have the same feeling about your presence now. That’s okay though because we all have missions and/or agendas. The Cafe really runs on its own as it has since October 2005 so your contributions are welcomed within reason.

It’s been an education for me to read your commentary about election procedures. I haven’t the time to check anything you have said although you sound convincing. You are certainly in a position to speak with authority though. Maybe Bill will learn something during his tussle with you.

from Frank Corden

Sorry folks. I’ve been traveling over the last couple of weeks and consistent with company policy, won’t use my laptop for personal/political purposes.

Regardless, I didn’t realize a request for clarification would engender such a vitriolic debate.

This shouldn’t have been about me personally. I’m sorry it devolved to that. It’s about the actions and positions that politically active citizens take.

To go back to the original post, my question of WVG was what actions, activities or positions did Shultz et al take that benefited the schools (note I’ve seen none documented to date on the threads. If you have posted some my apologies, I could have missed a thread), and what actions/positions did I take that were detrimental (again, I’ve not seen any specifics).

WVG, any comment?

For the record my preference was to run again for the BoE slot. I did interview with the Woodstock RTC nominating committee. I did not have the support of the nominating committee and didn’t believe I had the time or resources to commit to a primary challenge.

So it was a personal decision.

from Woodstock Valley Girl

Subtitle: An Ode to ‘Bill’

Fact: Frank Corden never would have been endorsed by the Woodstock Republicans (and by “Woodstock Republicans” I mean, the nominating committee of the RTC, the entire RTC, and a caucus of all Republicans) for the Board of Education this year. He would have been nominated if he were to pull a primary petition, force and win a primary and win that primary BUT Bill, let’s come back to reality, the odds of Frank prevailing in a Republican primary this past September were slim to none, you know it and I know it and so does Frank.

Fact: There are three methods by which to endorse candidate for municipal office, I quoted the statute word for word and you sit there insisting I’m wrong and that I’m “taking things out of context.” “Petitioning” is NOT a method of “endorsement.” Bill, you are obviously too stupid to realize this. Petitioning is a method by which one gets their name on a primary ballot which then determines who gets NOMINATED. Bill, this is why I’ve been asking you to please explain to me the difference between “endorsement” and “nomination” and unfortunately your obstinate attitude and refusal to do so has resulted in you making a complete ass out of yourself because you’ve proven you don’t know the key difference between those terms as they relate to candidates on the ballot.

Fact: Delegates for district and state conventions are chosen IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL PARTY RULES which varies from town to town, some do it by Town Committee and others by caucus. If you don’t believe me Bill, start looking in the legal notice section this month and you will see MANY towns posting legal notices for party caucuses that will be held to “endorse delegates for state and district conventions.” The window for towns to hold those caucuses this year is between March 23rd and March 30th and the legal notices need to be in at least five days before that. Tell ya what Bill, I’ll scan one and email it to the admin who will post it for all to see how wrong you are. Read the rest of this entry »

from Proud Liberal 

Brownie, Conservative judges are the ones who vindicate corporations over the working guy. Take the recent court ruling on corporate campaign contributions and of course, how can we forget eminent domain? Liberalism looks out for everyone equally and I see no harm in that. Everyone deserves a fair trial and are innocent before proven guilty. I wish the sanctimonious religious right acted in such a Christian fashion.

Woodstock Valley Girl, the reason our economy is in the tank is because of capitalistic greed, not jealous liberals. I could care less about the rich. I just want to live simply and peacefully in a country where the working class is treated fairly. Before you start stereotyping people you should do some volunteer work. There are a lot of very good decent people that are on welfare. Not everyone is as fortunate as you (nor as ignorant, thank god).

Mr. Wetzel, I don’t want anything from anybody else, but I am willing to contribute to the welfare of a society so that it remains civilized, it treats people fairly, and provides safety nets for people. It seems to me that you don’t care about any of these things. It seems to me like you would prefer to live in a stressed out dog-eat-dog world where the rich get richer by exploiting the rest of us while you rationalize this behavior by pretending that you are above it all. Well, someday you might not be. You should try doing some volunteer work and maybe you will see how the other half lives.

Bill Loftus (D) will oppose Mike Alberts (R) in the next election.