Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

His press release says “Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) opposed appropriations measures presented by both parties today because neither takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction.”

He goes into great detail about why he opposes the Republican proposal, but gives no more information about why he opposes the Democratic proposal. Perhaps because it raises taxes on the rich?

Here’s the release:

Himes: Time for Action on Real Budget Plan

Himes opposes GOP measure that cuts school lunches, Meals on Wheels, SCHIP, and cancer screenings to fund Pentagon spending

BRIDGEPORT, CT—Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) opposed appropriations measures presented by both parties today because neither takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The GOP plan cuts vital services to vulnerable citizens to avoid reductions in Pentagon spending. The bill guts funding for food stamps, free school lunches, cancer screenings for women who can’t afford them, and services that help elderly and handicapped individuals remain independent.

“It’s unconscionable that some in Congress refuse to cut Pentagon spending, even when it means taking food out of the mouths of starving children to pay for their unwillingness to make real choices,” Himes said. “We’ve left Iraq and we’re drawing down troops in Afghanistan. Our tax code is broken, and we won’t be able to afford programs like Medicare that people desperately need if we do not make reforms. Our deficit problem is serious now, but it will become grave if we do not act quickly. The games on both sides need to stop—it’s time to act on a real plan to reduce the deficit in a way that doesn’t ask the poor to the carry the burden of tax cuts for the most affluent among us and decades of poor fiscal decisions.”

H.R. 5652 would impose deep budget cuts that cost jobs and hurt middle class and vulnerable Americans – especially seniors, veterans, and children. It slashes billions in vital services and cancels the budget cuts to defense spending Republicans and Democrats agreed upon in the Budget Control Act (the August 2011 debt-limit deal). The bill Republicans passed today protects Pentagon spending from the BCA agreement and does so in a way that undermines critical domestic priorities, such as efforts to prevent hunger and support low-income families and communities; to expand health care access and implement the Affordable Care Act; to protect consumers and implement the Wall Street Reform Act; and to support homeowners struggling to stay in their homes.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Today, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the largest organization of women activists in the United States, endorsed Chris Murphy to be Connecticut’s next United States Senator. NOW’s endorsement comes on the heels of the launch of Women for Murphy, an organization of women across Connecticut joining together in support of Murphy’s campaign.

“We are proud to endorse Chris Murphy for the United States Senate because of his strong commitment to women’s issues and to advancing equal rights and opportunity,” said Terry O’Neill, chair of NOW PAC. “We believe he will be a great ally for women in the Senate and we look forward to working with him to achieve full equality for women and girls.”

“I decided to run for the State House in 1998 because I was being represented by one of the most anti-woman, anti-choice members of the state legislature,” said Murphy. “Since then, I’ve fought for women’s rights at the local, state and federal level. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made but there is still much more to be done. Republicans are trying to bring us back to the Stone Age when it comes to women’s rights. I’m running for the Senate to be a strong voice for women and a strident opponent of the Republican war on women.”

Founded in 1966, NOW has 550 chapters and a presence in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. NOW works with legislators and fellow activists to protect women’s rights and to continue the fight for equality in schools, the workplace and our justice system.

Since announcing his candidacy in the beginning of 2011, Murphy has built an unparalleled grassroots coalition, propelling him to the head of the field. He has received the endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, State Council of the Service Employees International Union, the Working Families Party, the Connecticut Hispanic Democratic Caucus, the Connecticut Education Association, Connecticut Fire Fighters, United Auto Workers, Connecticut Laborers, the Connecticut State Building and Construction Trades Council, the Communications Workers of America, the League of Conservation Voters, Connecticut’s entire Congressional House delegation, Attorney General George Jepsen, Comptroller Kevin Lembo, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, dozens of state Senators and state Representatives and over 10,000 Democratic and progressive activists from all across Connecticut.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

Hey Buddy, didn’t you see the sign. It says “MIND THE GAAP.”

The issue was one of candidate Dan Malloy’s most important campaign promises and on January 3, 2011 it was the topic of my very first post here on Wait, What?;

MIND THE GAAP – Confronting the Cost of Fiscal Honesty.

Candidate Malloy had made it abundantly clear, he was going to put Connecticut fiscal house in order and that meant moving the state to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the modern accounting system.

My first post (link above) provides some background on the whole GAAP issue, but my assessment begins with the observation that with Malloy’s commitment, “we will get a firsthand look at the underlying cost of introducing Fiscal Honesty to the state’s budget. Why…because one of Governor-elect Dan Malloy and Lt. Governor-Elect Nancy Wyman’s most significant campaign promises was to move Connecticut government to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Connecticut requires all cities, towns and boards of education to adhere to GAAP standards; it just exempts itself from these common sense requirements.”

Beware the GAAP

My post went on to say “during this year’s gubernatorial campaign Dan Malloy and Nancy Wyman repeatedly pledged that moving Connecticut to GAAP accounting was the single most important way to ensure greater honesty and transparency in state budgeting…and then I concluded with “The task is a noble, important and worthy one. Connecticut state government should be required to conduct itself using this basic accounting system. There is only one problem; shifting the State to GAAP will cost $1.2 billion dollars. That’s $1.2 billion on-top of the $3.7 billion dollar budget short fall Connecticut is facing for next year.”

So, the day Governor Malloy was sworn into office, he signed an Executive Orders requiring the state start utilizing GAAP principles.

A month later, after they realized a rapid shift to GAAP was prohibitively expensive, Malloy proposed a state budget that made a $75 million down payment this year and another $50 million down payment next year, followed by a 15 year $150 million dollar a year payment schedule that would complete the transition to GAAP and allow Connecticut to properly manage its state budget and finance system. While the implementation was now scheduled to take place over 17 years and not immediately as he had promised, it was still a step forward.

All this year, even when Malloy’s budget office was begrudgingly forced to admit there might be a budget deficit, Governor Malloy, OPM Chief, Chris Barnes and anyone else with the authority to speak for the Governor stuck to their talking points, pledging that the State would find the funds to make that critical first payment toward its 17-year GAAP conversion process.

And then, quietly, in the middle of the chaos that is known as the last few days of the legislative session, the Malloy administration did it…they withdrew their commitment to make the $75 million payment this year and chose to forego the opportunity to take that first baby step toward fiscal accountability.

Speaking on behalf of Governor Malloy, Gian-Carl Casa, of the Office of Policy and Management, admitted to CTMirror’s Keith Phaneuf that “we do remain committed to GAAP…We are hopeful we will have a surplus at the end of FY 13 and can apply that to GAAP.”

The Malloy Administration is “hopeful” that you will have a surplus next year and can then begin the conversation toward GAAP?

Hopeful?

As a direct result of this administration’s bad fiscal policy decisions and the faltering economy, Connecticut’s next budget is already a half a billion dollars in deficit and they’re telling the public that they are “hopeful” that there will be a surplus so they can begin the GAAP conversion process that they had promised.

Oh, and when a reporter recently asked Malloy whether his new budget changes (including foregoing the GAAP payment) preserved his campaign pledges, Malloy was heard to say ”Yeah, I think it does…Yeah, I absolutely think it does.”

But perhaps the biggest kick of all is that as part of the budget changes that the Malloy Administration and Legislature made this week, they voted to remove the language that said if there was a surplus this year it would go toward the GAAP payment. Instead, the law now reads that if, by some miracle there is a budget surplus, the money will automatically be shifted into next year’s budget.

For more see CTMirror’s http://ctmirror.com/story/16269/despite-governors-pledges-gaap-conversion-officially-deferred-close-budget-deficit”>http://ctmirror.com/story/16269/despite-governors-pledges-gaap-conversion-officially-deferred-close-budget-deficit

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

By Luther Weeks from CT Voters Count

Email and fax voting are more dangerous than Internet voting. Has your email been hacked? Would you trust emails allegedly from your bank asking for your social security number and account number? Would you send them over the Internet in an email reply?

H.B. 5556 is about campaign finance, but recently nestled in sections 23 to 25 is a provision for email and fax voting for military and overseas voters. Last night it passed both houses of the Legislature.

Sec. 23. Section 9-153e of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

A member of the armed forces who is an elector or an applicant for admission as an elector, or the member’s spouse or dependent if living where such member is stationed, may apply before a regular election for a blank absentee ballot to vote for all offices being contested at the election. The clerk shall make such ballots available for this purpose beginning not earlier than ninety days before the election. Application shall be made upon a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State or on the federal postcard application form provided pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 100 Stat. 924, 42 USC 1973ff et seq. , as amended from time to time, or any other applicable law and shall be issued only if the applicant states that due to military contingencies the regular application procedure, as set forth in section 9-140, cannot be followed. Upon receipt of the application, the municipal clerk shall issue the ballot and a cover sheet pursuant to section 25 of this act, either by mail or electronic means, as requested by the elector, which shall be prescribed and provided by the Secretary of the State, and a list of the offices to be voted upon indicating the number of individuals for which each elector may vote. As soon as a complete list of nominated candidates, including the party designations of such candidates, and questions is available, the clerk shall send such list to each applicant. If the list of candidates and questions is not available when the ballot is issued, the clerk shall include a statement indicating that such list shall be mailed as soon as it becomes available. The ballot shall permit the elector to vote by writing in the names of specific candidates and offices for which he is voting. The elector may also vote on the questions in a manner prescribed by the Secretary of the State. If such ballot is issued by electronic means, the clerk shall include a certification prescribed by the Secretary of the State that the elector shall be required to complete, sign and return with the completed ballot in order for such ballot to be counted. If the military contingency no longer exists, application for an additional ballot for all offices may be made pursuant to the provisions of section 9-153b.

Sec. 24. Section 9-153f of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-140, any elector who is living, or expects to be living or traveling before and on election day, outside the territorial limits of the several states of the United States and the District of Columbia and any member of the armed forces who is an elector or an applicant for admission as an elector, or the member’s spouse or dependent if living where such member is stationed, may apply for a blank absentee ballot to vote for all offices being contested at an election or primary. Application shall be made upon a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State or on the federal postcard application form provided pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 100 Stat. 924, 42 USC 1973ff et seq. , as amended from time to time, or any other applicable law. The municipal clerk receiving such an application shall, as soon as a complete list of candidates and questions to be voted upon at such election or primary becomes available, issue the ballot and a cover sheet pursuant to section 25 of this act, either by mail or electronic means, as requested by the elector, which shall be the blank ballot prescribed and provided by the Secretary of the State under section 9-153e, as amended by this act. The clerk shall include with the ballot a complete list of the offices to be voted upon, the number of individuals for which each elector may vote, the candidates, and, in the case of an election, the party designation of each candidate and questions to be voted upon. If such ballot is issued by electronic means, the clerk shall include a certification prescribed by the Secretary of the State that the elector shall be required to complete, sign and return with the completed ballot in order for such ballot to be counted. If application for an absentee ballot is made at the time of availability of regular absentee ballots as provided in section 9-140, the provisions of section 9-140 shall prevail. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the procedures governing the issuance of ballots under this section shall conform as nearly as may be to the procedures provided in section 9-140.

Sec. 25. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 145 of the general statutes, for any election or primary held on or after August 14, 2012, an elector or an applicant for admission as an elector who applies for an absentee ballot pursuant to the provisions of section 9-153e or 9-153f of the general statutes, as amended by this act, may return such ballot, and certification, if required by said section 9-153e or 9-153f, and the cover sheet prescribed by the Secretary of the State pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, by facsimile or electronic mail and such ballot shall be counted with other absentee ballots in accordance with the provisions of section 9-150a of the general statutes, provided (1) the municipal clerk receives such electronically returned ballot, certification and signed cover sheet prior to the closing of the polls on the day of the election or primary, as applicable, and (2) such elector does not also mail the original ballot or a hard copy of the ballot to the municipal clerk.

(b) Not later than June 1, 2012, the Secretary of the State shall prescribe a cover sheet for electronic transmission of absentee ballots. Such sheet shall provide instructions for returning a ballot by electronic means and to include the elector’s name, telephone number, facsimile number or electronic mail address from which the ballot was returned, as applicable. Such cover sheet shall include the following statement: “I understand that by faxing or emailing my voted ballot I am voluntarily waiving my right to a secret ballot only to the extent that the appropriate election official must receive and process my ballot. Signature: …. Date: …. “

There have never been hearings on fax and email voting in Connecticut. Last year there were hearings on Internet voting. Later last year a requirement for Internet voting was hidden in a long bill of technical changes to election law. Several weeks after its discovery, after strong opposition by the Secretary of the State, it was watered down to requiring a report on Internet voting by the Secretary. Subsequently the Secretary held a symposium with national experts exposing the risks of Internet voting, apparently” to no avail. This year the bill hacking occurred later in the process, leaving no time for opponents to discover and react to the provision.

The debate was mostly about the campaign finance disclosure provisions aimed at counteracting Citizens United. The Governor’s staff is questioning the constitutionality of the bill and raising the potential for a veto. We question the constitutionality of the provision for individual voters to waive “their” right of secret voting – our understanding is that the purpose of secret voting includes our right to not have their vote exposed, purchased, or intimidated – they cannot waive our right to a secret vote.

Implementing the bill might be a challenge for many of our election officials, it seems like just last week that a bill was passed requiring towns to provide registrars with email accounts to converse with the Secretary of the State. Perhaps it should have provided for faxes, fax phone lines, and email to converse with military and overseas voters.

We applaud Secretary Merrill and her office for their stand against the bill <read>

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

I had to laugh at this press release, so I am offering it to you without further comment:

FAIRFIELD, Conn., May 9, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Witnessing the final defeat of Indiana’s 80 year old Senator Richard Lugar shapes the earnest that has become The Tea Party. Given the surge that was the 2010 mid-year election, incumbents can no longer expect to gain traction on issues that historically favored incumbency status. Anyone not sufficiently conservative is suspect to the ire of an angry, informed and organized citizenry.

Team Lumaj happily acknowledges a win that favors a Conservative lead in the US Senate. As Richard Mourdock begins the liberation of the Midwest, Team Lumaj continues its quest to liberate the citizens of Connecticut one town at a time. The precedents that Pat Toomey, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are building, we gladly add Richard Mourdock to the list of liberators that vanquish the lie that is contemporary liberalism.

We look forward to working with Senator Mourdock in implementing the Reaganite policy mix of sound money, low taxation, pro-growth strategy so that American citizens can inherit a birthright shaped by our Founders.

Deo Optimo Maximo
Contact:
William J. Holland
Political Director
2039551120
williamjholland@lumaj2012.com
www.lumaj2012.com
SOURCE Connecticut for Peter Lumaj