Political Capitol

A few posts back I wrote about an effort to expand alcohol sales at the two Indian gaming casinos – Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun – even though the state is still studying for the first time the impact, postitive and negative, those attractions have had on the economy, residents and social services.

Paul Young, head of the state’s Department of Special Revenue, today responded to an earlier e-mail inquiry that the study, undertaken last year, is due later this month or in early March.

“We put out our request for proposals on the study in September 2007 and executed a contract with the Spectrum Gaming Group, LLC, of Linwood, New Jersey, in February 2008,” Young wrote. “I’m expecting the final product late this month – early next month. Once we are ready with it we will put out a press release and make it available on our website.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has scheduled a press conference for 12:30 p.m. to announce a proposal to overhaul the state’s laws on keeping wild/exotic animals in response to the tragic chimp attack that occurred in Stamford Monday.

The office did not give any specifics.

As The Advocate has reported, the state Department of Environmental Protection since 2004 has required zoos, nature centers and individuals to obtain permits for keeping various exotic animals/pets. But the couple that owned the Stamford chimp was exempted, despite the fact he escaped in 2003 and caused some minor havok in downtown Stamford for a few hours.

A national animal rights group yesterday called on Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell to support a complete ban of owning primates as pets in Connecticut. Perhaps that is the direction Blumenthal will take.

During a press conference earlier today Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell said her proposal to eliminate the offices of state healthcare advocate and consumer counsel is really “a matter of streamlining government” that could also ultimately save residents money on their household expenses.

It was the same argument her budget staff gave me last week.

The two advocates are the independent watchdogs for, respectively, residents grappling with their insurers and residents grappling with their utility companies.

The cuts were included in Rell’s budget proposal alongside her recommendations to eliminate other “watchdogs” like the state property rights ombudsman and the various commissions on aging and minorities. Her goal? Re-organizing state government to help address the gaping budget hole.

But, critics argued, the healthcare advocate and consumer counsel aren’t paid out of the general fund like some of those other entities on the chopping block. They’re paid by fees levied on insurance companies and utilities that have nothing to do with the state budget or closing the deficit.

In an interview with The Advocate last week, Jeffrey Beckham, a spokesman for Rell’s budget office, acknowledged: “It’s not being done to help save money in the general fund or help the deficit.”

Beckham, like Rell, said the move would streamline government. And he also said by eliminating the fees that fund the two advocates, insurance companies could cut back on their premiums and utilities on the cost of electricity.

But I just can’t see how that is going to happen.

Jeff, who is probably reading this, is an awfully nice, patient, helpful and knowledgable guy who I hope will continue answering my phonecalls.

But the healthcare advocate’s budget is about $1 million, split amongst numerous insurers, and the consumer counsel’s budget is around $3 million, split among numerous utilities. It just seems so unlikely that such small savings divided up amongst these big companies with big budgets would translate into any meaningful money in consumers’ pockets – PARTICULARLY if the state is not MANDATING they do so.

I briefly outlined this same reasoning to the Governor today but she stuck by her guns and argued she believes the savings “may be miniscule now” but will eventually be passed along in worthwhile amounts.

So now I guess it’s up to the legislature to decide whether to take that chance and support her proposal.

In the meantime, someone enlighten me. Because unless the insurance companies and utilities are like Jesus and can just keep pumping out loaves and fishes, I just don’t understand how cutting these fees is going to multiply into savings for residents.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell today held a press conference at the state’s surplus car lot touting efforts to cut down on the number of vehicles driven by public employees and, in some cases, auction them off to the public.

I couldn’t help but notice some of the cars still have a “How’s My Driving?” sticker affixed to their bumpers. The stickers are part of a program Rell launched last year encouraging residents to monitor the driving habits of state workers and call a special number if they want to file a complaint about misuse or unsafe driving.

I hope those stickers are removed before the cars are sent to auction and some family buys one for their college-bound son or daughter.

According to the Council of State Governments in Kentucky, Connecticut is one of only five states that give their public employees Lincoln’s birthday (last Thursday, Feb. 12) off. The others? California, Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey.

New Jersey’s workforce has just one more year to enjoy the day. Starting in 2012, according to the council, it will no longer be a state paid holiday.

It is a floating holiday in New York, where state employees can either take the actual day or use it within the year.

In Indiana, according to the council, Lincoln’s birthday is observed the day after Thanksgiving (a Friday), which kind of makes sense since it’s pretty typical for people to just take the long weekend off.

Interestingly Kentucky, where Lincoln was born, does not celebrate his birthday at all. Not only did Kentucky state workers have to be in the office last Thursday, but they should also be on the job today – President’s Day – which is typically a paid holiday in many states honoring BOTH Lincoln and George Washington.

Washington was born Feb. 22.

Connecticut’s employees also had today off.

As the state’s deficit continues to grow, more groups are coming forward at the capitol calling on the legislature to raise income taxes on the wealthy i.e. people living in Fairfield County and, particularly, Greenwich.

The latest was a coalition of minority lawmakers in the General Assembly who today argued Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s no-tax-budget proposal protects the richest by burdening the poorest with fee increases and cuts in healthcare.

There’s no question a lot of rich people live in Greenwich and it fits certain stereotypes. It’s freakin’ expensive to shop/dine there and celebrities and fine, unaffordable cars (well, unaffordable to me) are a common sight.

But also today our sister newspaper, the Greenwich Time, carried a story about 39 Greenwich town workers being laid-off – something First Selectman Peter Tesei said had never occurred in recent memory.

“I’m one of the ‘brown-box people’,” Simon Wake, a real estate appraiser, told reporter Neil Vigdor while leaving Town Hall with his personal belongings under the watch of plain-clothes cops. “It sucks.”

You know the economy is bad when even Greenwich can’t afford to keep employees on the payroll. And it puts a human face on residents whom clearly some folks at the capitol picture as walking dollar signs.

Maybe the town and its residents are not the fiscal cure some in Hartford think they’ll be.

The state’s Indian casinos were already quietly pushing to be allowed to sell alcohol around-the-clock before the legislature’s Republican minority included the move in their bid this week to balance the budget.

Basically revenues are down at the casinos, which hurts them and also impacts the state’s coffers, which took an $8 billion blow (so far) from the economic crisis. Making the casinos a haven from Connecticut’s liquor limits, proponents argue, would keep patrons gambling long after “last call” has been announced in bars and restaurants throughout the rest of the state. It would perhaps lure others who are not big gamblers but might have otherwise called it a night when their local watering hole stopped serving.

But there are potential downsides, which I’m sure are going to be debated in the coming months at the capitol. I imagine Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups will oppose increasing the hours alcohol can be sold and consumed on the grounds it will lead to more intoxicated drivers on the roads.

Perhaps individuals who own/run bars will also complain it will hurt business. And I understand, according to the New London Day, which covers that part of Connecticut, that the towns neighboring the casinos are not at all pleased with the proposal.

And then there is the question of gambling addiction. The General Assembly conducted five-year studies of legalized gambling and its impacts, good and bad, in the 1970s, 1980s and the early 1990s.

But then lawmakers decided they had other priorities for the money it costs to conduct the studies. The state is only now getting around to updating the information and taking into account the impact the two casinos are having, particularly in the area of problem-gambling.

It seems that legislators might want to hold off on doing anything to make the casinos more attractive until the study is released and they have a better handle on the situation.

But then again they didn’t seem to care all that much about conducting the study when fiscal times were good, so it is probably even easier to ignore the issue when faced with deficits in the billions.

… that earlier today – hours after Charles Darwin’s birthday – lawmakers in Hartford defeated one Republican’s attempt to thwart global warming legislation.