Political Capitol

At a press conference today House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, confirmed that after spending almost three months combing through $1.6 billion in unallocated accounts – money the Dems pledged back in March could be used to help whittle down the deficit - only $110 million has been identified.

The Democrats had pledged to find $220 million. And they’re technically bound by law because that figure was included in a “deficit mitigation plan” passed by the General Assembly and signed by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell in late February.

When reporters kept pressing the issue, Donovan turned it around and said he was glad the Democrats were able to come up with the $110 million.

“I’m a little more of a ‘glass half full’ guy,” he said.

But c’mon. Back in February legislative leaders visited the capitol press corps flush with excitement from “discovering” that $1.6 billion.

And even when Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s budget staff reviewed the accounts and said there was not $220 million just ripe for the taking, the Dems dismissed the comments as partisan and uncooperative.

So the Democrats have to expect some healthy skepticism (at least on the part of the press) over any future promises they make regarding addressing the full two-year budget deficit, which, depending on who’s doing the estimating, stands between $7.95 billion and $8.7 billion.

So Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, believes there are enough votes in that chamber to pass the bill abolishing the death penalty in Connecticut tomorrow.

“It will pass,” McKinney told me a few minutes ago.

On Monday Sen. Majority Leader Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said he thought he might have the 19 votes necessary to get the legislation, passed last week by the House of Representatives, out of the 36-member Senate.

Williams said he would not bring the legislation up for a vote if he did not know for certain he had 19 supporters.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who will have the job of introducing the bill, has been tight-lipped today on the issue. But McKinney said he expects a vote.

Last week’s House vote marked the first time a chamber of the Connecticut General Assembly had voted to abolish the death penalty. An affirmative Senate vote would be huge and make waves nationally and internationally.

Which brings me back to the title of this blog post.

In March New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat, signed legislation repealing the death penalty in that state.

While there has been some grumbling at the capitol that Connecticut Catholics are not doing enough to urge their lawmakers to act, Richardson’s decision was celebrated last month at Vatican City.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell as recently as last week reaffirmed her support of the death penalty.

There is no doubt that if the Senate passes the bill tomorrow and it heads for Rell’s desk, she is going to face significant pressure from special interests at the state, national and probably international level to either sign or veto it.

If McKinney is correct, this is going to be a very big deal.

The House of Representatives is entering hour seven in the ongoing debate on opening up the state employees’ health plan to municipalities, nonprofits and small businesses.

And the surest sign yet Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell will, as she did last year, veto the legislation was the arrival of her budget director, Robert Genuario of Norwalk, in the press room a little while ago to reiterate all the concerns the administration continues to have with the proposal.

I asked Genuario if any effort was ever made to reach an agreement over pooling in the past year. Rell upon vetoing last year’s bill said she would like to work with the sponsor, then-House Majority Leader/current House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden.

And at one point Lt. Governor Michael Fedele was assigned to be the go-between.

“There have been some discussions,” Genuario said.

Asked if the differences over pooling were irreconcilable – could he envision the state ever opening up the health plan to non-public workers? – Genuario said “we’re pretty far apart.”

“I could think of some ways that we could get closer together. The approach they’re taking is much too broad,” Genuario said. “I don’t want to say it’s irreconcilable but we’re pretty far apart.”

Genuario did dismiss rumors he had decided to retire this session.

“I’m not taking the retirement plan,” Genuario told reporters. “I’m very happy where I am. I don’t know where that rumor would have started.”

The debate over the healthcare pooling bill I mentioned earlier began at 12:30 p.m. and it looks like it will be lasting well into the evening.

I suspect just about all of the 37 Republican members of the House are planning to ask questions about the proposal.

I met briefly with both House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, the bill’s biggest booster, and House Minority Leader Larry Cafero, R-Norwalk, about whether there’s a plan for one side to blink so we can all go home at a decent hour.

In some cases when the Republicans filibuster a piece of legislation, Democratic leadership in the House decides to end the stalemate by passing the bill temporarily  – which sometimes means it’s being reworked to address concerns and other times means it’s dead for the session.

Donovan made it clear that ain’t happening with his pooling bill.

“They’re not going to talk it to death,” Donovan said. “They’re just talking.”

Donovan said he is disappointed the House Republicans appear committed to block healthcare reform in Connecticut.

“They don’t want to give the public this opportunity,” he said. “We’ll wait it out. We know we have the votes.”

Cafero said he knows Donovan has the support to pass the pooling proposal out of the House but the Republicans want to make sure that the legislature and the public have a true understanding of the costs and flaws of the plan. And the only way to do that is for the GOP to use the opportunity to examine the legislation and air their concerns.

“This bill will leave this chamber in an hour or 20 hours. But not until we ask every question,” Cafero said. “It ain’t what they say it is.”

The Democrats could pull a parliamentary move and have a member interrupt the proceedings and “call the question” to force an immediate vote. But Donovan said that has never been the tradition of the House for the 16 years he’s been in office and he does not plan on being the Speaker who breaks that tradition.

Weston First Selectman Woody Bliss and Redding First Selectman Natalie Ketchum, both Republicans, were among the members of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns to visit the capitol today and air various concerns to lawmakers.

Bliss said he is frustrated the General Assembly has yet to pass a state budget but takes a few hours to debate other issues, like last week’s sometimes comical back-and-forth over whether to mandate all American flags flown on state property be made in the U.S.A.

Many municipalities have already passed their budgets assuming certain amounts of state aid. They are concerned about beginning their new fiscal years July 1 without a final state budget and final aid numbers.

Ketchum agreed with Bliss.

“That’s unacceptable. They knew going in the budget was a primary issue,” she said.

Of course the irony here is that in some cases their fellow Republicans are the ones who attempt to filibuster various bills because, as the minority party, that is pretty much the only power they have in the General Assembly.

House Speaker Christopher Donovan’s, D-Meriden, bill allowing municipalities, nonprofits and small businesses, if they so choose, to sign onto the state employees’ health plan (that’s where the term “pooling” comes from) is currently being debated in that Chamber.

Donovan’s hope is, if passed into law, the proposal would help lower the costs of health insurance in the state.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk did his best to argue against the proposal, making the case that there are lots of unknowns that could end up costing Connecticut far more than anticipated during tough economic times.

“This is one bill you can’t just sell with a bumper sticker slogan. Who doesn’t want affordable healthcare?” Cafero said a few minutes ago. “But the devil’s in the details.”

Of particular concern to many is the requirement in the bill that the state return to the self-insured healthcare model abandoned a few years ago.

Rep. Lile Gibbons, R-Greenwich, just warned her colleagues “this ends up being an insurance company run by the state.”

Since it’s Donovan’s bill, it’s likely to pass. The debate is a formality at this point. Otherwise he would not have brought it out for a vote and risk the embarrassment of it going down in flames in the Democrat-run chamber.

And Donovan also believes there are enough votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass the pooling proposal as well.

But then it goes to Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who vetoed similar legislation last year.

Rell a few weeks ago told me she has major concerns with the state self-insuring, so I think there’s a pretty good chance she will veto this proposal.

Donovan said he gave Rell the heads up last week he was likely to bring the legislation up for a vote.

“We’re still talking but in the meantime I’ve got to run something,” Donovan told me earlier today. “It’s a good bill (and) should pass.”

There was a lengthy debate in the state House of Representatives today over a bill that would require local and regional school boards include two high school students as non-voting members.

Lots of folks spoke against the proposal, but one of the more interesting arguments was made by freshman Rep. Terrie Wood, R-Darien.

Wood said one reason for not adding high school students to boards of education is the fact that the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex does not reach full maturity until around the age of 25.

She isn’t wrong. I’ve heard opponents of lowering the drinking age make the same argument.

But at the same time state law allows 21-year-olds to run for the General Assembly.

As a result of Wood’s comments I sought out freshman Rep. Matthew Lesser, D-Middletown, the youngest member of the House. But just how young I wasn’t sure. I knew he recently celebrated a birthday because he was cheered by his colleagues. Could he be 22 or 23 or 24? And if so, what did he think about Wood’s statement?

The very mature Mr. Lesser, besides making me wonder what the heck I’m doing with my life, informed me he was 25 last November, turned 26 last month and that he missed Wood’s comments.

“I’m glad my frontal cortex developed before I was elected,” Lesser joked. “My constituents are as well.”

Most bills in Hartford have what’s called a “fiscal note” – a synopsis of the legislation’s potential costs to the state or to municipalities by the non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

And in sessions like this one, when lawmakers are struggling to address a deficit in the billions-of-dollars, the mere presence of a fiscal note can be the kiss of death for a piece of legislation.

What seems to be happening more and more is lawmakers are trying to game the system by tweaking legislative language to state “within available funds” or “existing resources.”

Just today I had a conversation with some lawmakers who are working to amend a bill that would authorize a study of bringing highway tolls back to Connecticut.

The legislation currently has a fiscal note of $500,000 to hire a consultant for the study.

“In this environment that’s a difficult obstacle to overcome,” Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, a Transportation Committee co-chairman, said. So he and others are hoping to amend the bill to authorize the Department of Transportation do the work in-house.

DeFronzo believes that is possible. But, as you can read in the link above, the fiscal note actually talks about some of the problems caused should the toll study be done using available resources.

You have to wonder what’s better – passing bills hoping the agency can take on the additional work or just admitting there are too few resources and allowing these pieces of legislation to die until a day when the state can afford to do it right.