Much has been written about minimum wage. First we have to ask our selves what minimum wage is. Is it the wage paid to a person entering the job market with no skills, training, or education — or, is it that minimum wage needed to support a family of four? Do we expect every high-schooler working their first job to be paid enough to raise a family? (If you have no skills or training and the only job you can get pays minimum wage, then that is not the time to start a family.) An employer should not have to pay you big wages just because that is what you want but, rather, you should be getting the skills to command a bigger wage because that is what you need. Some people are putting the cart before the horse, and that will never work.
Wes Lubee’s letter (R-J, 4-22) criticizes Pat Kohl’s letter (R-J, 4-17) about Wallingford’s bond rating. Lubee conveniently ignores the fact that Kohl was responding to a previous letter-writer (Bill Fritz, R-J, 4-11) who suggested spending more than one-third of the town’s reserves this year. That’s a pretty big “portion,” isn’t it? Lubee also does not answer Kohl’s question that, if we do as suggested this year, what about next year, when all that money is gone?
Lubee may think that keeping the highest possible credit rating is only a “slight benefit” and not worth the cost. But if we are talking about the interest rate on millions or tens of millions of dollars, I have to disagree. Just ask anybody who applies for a home mortgage or a car loan whether an excellent credit rating matters.
Sharon Sanders, Wallingford
Waste of breath
The people of Wallingford told town residents in the last referendum 2011 that they were against the expense of repairs for Simpson Court; now some people want to open old wounds again. Why are they being so defiant? A grant is for projects of improvement, and there is so much improvement needed in the downtown sector. Police department needs should be a priority. All this gets put on the back burner because arrogant citizens of Wallingford have spoken; its time to stop dirty politics and show respect. Taxes, water bills, electric rates were raised. What other surprises are in store at taxpayer expense?
Disabled veterans who sacrificed their lives to save us can’t get a free license to fish unless they are blind or missing an arm or leg. I ask, why are these men and women being treated like lowlife when they did not think twice about sacrificing their lives to save our freedoms? What a way to show care! There is so much more to be said, but it’s just a waste of breath. For shame, dirty politics. God bless our military heroes.
Alice Souza, Wallingford
As a former service member with the First Combat Communications Group for Wiesbaden, Germany, I recently received an invitation from State Senator Dante Bartolomeo to attend an award ceremony on Friday, May 9, at Meriden’s Lincoln Middle School, where Connecticut Veteran’s Wartime Service Medals would be awarded. Even though I am a previous recipient of this medal, I was still asked to attend, as Sen. Bartolomeo wished to honor all of our wartime veterans.
I contacted her office and stated that I’d lost my medal in a terrible house fire that we suffered on Dec. 20, 2012. I explained to her that now I was saddened by this loss, and that I’d like to request a replacement medal, if at all possible. Upon hearing that news, Bartolomeo acted promptly. A few days later, a replacement award as well as a Certificate from Gov. Malloy arrived at my door. My wartime service during Operation Desert Storm always will be a very important part of my life, and I am grateful to Bartolomeo for her kind assistance. Her actions show that she truly does care about our wartime Veterans, and her recognition of them is sincere.
I am proud to accept her invitation and will be in attendance on May 9. I encourage all wartime veterans who are eligible to apply for this medal to do so and to attend the ceremony.
Mark J. Gabriel, Meriden
Congressman John Larson would like to see a constitutional amendment changing the term for House members so they wouldn’t have to spend so much time raising funds for reelection. Shame on him. The legislature was never intended to be a career. An amendment we need: term limits.
Geoffrey Fowler, Southington
‘Once it is gone’
Remember the saying, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”? Well, in response to Eric Cotton’s commentary published Sunday (R-J, 4-20, “Once it is gone”), I would like to express my serious disbelief and disappointment in what I believe to be Cotton’s misguided, “entitlement-oriented” perspective. He almost comes off as being intrusively disrespectful of the heritage, right, and necessity for the Suzio family to conduct business operations, as their family has for over 100 years. They are monitored, regulated, and taxed highly by all local, state and federal governments that purchase and use, directly or indirectly, the very trap rock that they mine.
York Hill trap rock and other Connecticut trap rock is used to build roads, bridges, waterways, schools, hospitals, ballfields, linear trails and even fish ladders. I believe that Democrats love to spend big money on these projects that are funded by taxpayers. How dare anyone try to cast a gloomy shadow on the noble, difficult effort to legally and safely mine trap rock — selling it throughout our area for a fair price? In order for the operation to continue and maintain jobs it provides, as well an affordable product, of course they have to tap their land resources, as planned decades ago.
Nicholas Murano Jr., Yalesville
Regarding the article concerning the Cook Avenue Medical Building (R-J, 4-15): I cannot believe our city leaders continually waste taxpayer’s dollars. When will Meriden’s frivolous wasting of taxpayer dollars ever stop? In 2000, despite councilors experienced in real estate speaking out against the city’s purchase of an abandon Medical Building on Cook Avenue, seven of our illustrious “leaders” (councilors) voted in favor of spending $700,000 our city couldn’t afford. (I recall vividly having attended the meeting and personally speaking out against such frivolous spending, while hearing councilors in favor stating what a great buy this would be and all the potential this building had, and what a steal it was for only $700,000).
Well, it looks to me, as it did then, like our city simply bailed out another property owner, who I am sure couldn’t wait to bank the money that the city paid for his vacant building. Additionally, think how “wise” it was for the city to purchase the building — thus removing it from the tax rolls for some 14 years. What did that ultimately cost in lost tax revenues?
Fast forward 14 years, and while the city chose to do nothing with the property in the 14 years it has owned it, now it will cost the city $2 million to renovate or demolish the building. Thus, Meriden has yet another vacant lot — this one costing taxpayers more than $3 million. Is it any wonder taxpayers continually feel over burdened with our leaders’ out-of-control spending again and again?