test

test

They Write Letters

Over at Nassau GOP Watch we disect a letter attacking Tom Suozzi that appeared in Newsday on Friday. No, it wasn't written by Schmitt but it certainly could have been.

Schmitt, whistle-blowers and Intimidation

One thing you can say about Peter Schmitt is he doesn't give a darn about being consistant. I mean it's not even as if he tries. He just barrels along doing whatever he needs to do and say to garner headlines.
The Nassau County Legislature passed a whistle-blowers protection law last week.
Back in January, Schmitt issued a press release that said his "2005 Whistleblower Protection Act" would "protect an employee who comes forward with an allegation of unlawful activity." and "It became quite clear that these employees were afraid of retaliation by their employer."
Hmmmm....

Isn't this the same Peter Schmitt who forced a young woman to attend a legislature hearing and then brought her to tears by publicly announcing that she was sexually assaulted by a county manager?
The young woman did not want to go public with what happend to her yet Schmitt felt that he could use the woman's story for political gain. The young woman broke down in the hearing room sobbing as Schmitt recounted in public what she told him in private.
The shock and disgust at Schmitt's actions came from all sides. Instead of helping the young woman by offering to take her to the DA to file charges, Schmitt made a public spectacle of what she went through.
Why would Schmitt do this to the young woman? Because he wanted to "get" CE Tom Suozzi and make some headlines. How sick and sad.
The young woman is suing Schmitt charging that he INTIMIDATED her to come forward. She did not want to be at the hearing. She did not want her ordeal and name made public. Schmitt just didn't care.
What Schmitt did makes a mockery of anything he proposed.
Schmitt's over-paid mouth-piece Ed Ward told Newsday "he was glad Democratic lawmakers 'finally passed a law we proposed back in January'."
Where were the concerns for the young woman last year?
She was abused by Peter Sylver and then she was abused by Peter Schmitt.

We covered this Here, Here and Here.

We NEED real whistle-blower protection. A Los Alamos whistle-blower was beaten and left for dead a few days before he was going to testify.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Regular readers of Schmitt Watch know that Schmitt only has a passing relationship with the truth. It's as if he just can't be honest. Back in 2001 when the Gulotta ship was sinking fast and after Schmitt lost his majority in the Legislature, he and the other surviving republicans did all they could to distance themselves from Gulotta and thier own records.
They went so far as to hold a press conference to make a public split with Gulotta.
Schmitt has since run fast and hard away from his past. Bring up what he did in the past and he goes ballistic insisting we must look forward.
What a joke.
Back in 2001, Schmitt held a community meeting and was confronted by a constituent as reported in the Massapeuqa Post ;
"One resident challenged Legis. Schmitt for his criticism of County Executive Gulotta, claiming that Schmitt voted to pass the budget when Republicans were in the majority.
Schmitt replied that the County Executive and the various department heads spent more than the budget permitted."

Whoa!

Gulotta was quick to respond; "Department heads cannot overspend their budgets without approval of the Legislature." In addition, he said that Legis. Schmitt voted for the budgets that are now in question, and for the elimination of a $60 million source of revenue (the land transfer tax) in the fiscal 2000 budget.
Gulotta further explains that after Schmitt "voted to approve the budget with the revenue in it, he did not cut expenses to accommodate that loss of revenue." According to Gulotta, one rating agency viewed that action as "the single most irresponsible action that they had ever witnessed anywhere in America" and it was shortly thereafter that they downgraded the County’s bonds. Gulotta said that he "will not participate in scapegoating."

Gulotta went on a tear;
"I accept my share of the responsibility as County Executive and it’d be nice if he (Schmitt) were man enough to participate in the solution to the problem."

OUCH! Gulotta pegged Schmitt for what he really is.

And here is the kicker; Schmitt in his zeal to defend himself against Gulotta stepped all over the same arguments he tries to use now.
"Schmitt later said that 75 percent of what the County spends is mandated. And the County, he reminded the audience, does not receive the lion’s share of its residents’ property tax dollar. Sixty-five cents goes to the school district, nineteen cents goes to the County and fourteen-cents goes to the Town, explained Schmitt."

That's right. There are mandated non-discretionary spending. That spending also increases every year. When Schmitt complains about rising spending in the county, he is hoping that you the voter don't know that the increase is in mandated spending. There have been cuts in discrestionary spending the past three years.

It's amazing that Schmitt can say one thing then and then another now.

Our Other Sites

Hello Dear Reader!

If you like reading Schmitt Watch, hop on over to Nassau GOP Watch and King Watch.
We also have a bunch of gear to show your disdain for your favorite Nassau Republican candidate.

New Bumper Sticker in Nassau.

Get Yours Today at the Gift Shop!

Schmitt Gets Spanked in the Massapequan Observer

From June 3, 2005

Responding to Peter Schmitt's Letter

Regarding Peter Schmitt's May 6 letter to the editor about Legislator Mejias' Town Hall meeting, it is clear he has no idea what he is talking about and is willing to deceive the readers of the Observer. Had Schmitt actually attended the town hall meeting or even read the article in Observer he would know that Legislator Mejias wasn't taking credit for anything. He made an announcement. He was doing his job to inform residents of legislative actions regarding the meeting's main topic. The meeting, which was about concerns for the Massapequa Preserve, addressed the same issues that Schmitt says Legislator Mejias is trying to draw attention away from. How can it be both ways? It can't. Schmitt is once again doing his best to deceive residents. Schmitt's letter is more about election-year politics than actual concern for the Massapequa Preserve. Friends of Massapequa Preserve President Richard Schary should be weary of being used to score political points.

When it comes to proposals from Schmitt, one has to ask, "where's the money?" Just because he proposes an increase in the number of police officers doesn't mean he offered any way to actually pay for them. Schmitt calls for increased spending on one hand and then wants tax cuts on the other. He wants it both ways again. What Schmitt fails to say is that the 2005 budget already calls for more police hires. Schmitt's word game with "10th and deciding vote" is another attempt at deception. Schmitt ought to check with Steve Rhoads, another Republican candidate who said Legislator Denenberg was the "deciding vote" and follows that by saying it's "a fact." It seems the Republicans have their campaign message and they just substitute names. Schmitt and the Republicans again prove it's about the politics, not the people.

When Schmitt complained of Legislator Mejias "wasting time garnering headlines" I almost fell over laughing. This is the same Peter Schmitt who fiddled around town with his own personal photographer getting his pictures in local papers while Nassau County hurtled toward bankruptcy. Schmitt still has his own photographer and spends his time handing out "Legislative Proclamations" like candy on Halloween. Schmitt would present a "Legislative Proclamation" at a door opening. Schmitt spends all his time "garnering headlines" posing for pictures while Legislator Mejias does the job. The most amusing photo and caption was for the Massapequa Preserve's 2nd Annual Earth Day Cleanup where Schmitt "aided" the cleanup in a sport coat, slacks and dress shoes.