Political Capitol

When Hearst Newspapers offered to include Mystic Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Merrick Alpert in this past weekend’s story about candidates’ wealth, he declined, basically saying there are more important issues to talk about.

He did have time to mail rubber chickens to the media to mock Democratic opponent Richard Blumenthal’s refusal to participate in another debate.

1. Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont arrived a few minutes late for the event, hosted by WVIT Channel 30, blaming traffic. All that money and Lamont still doesn’t own a hover car or a transporter. What the heck?!

2. None of the candidates have any interest in ruffling the feathers of typically pro-Democrat organized labor, including Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura, whose responses were at times more conservative than those of his five opponents’. Responding to a question about whether the candidates would promise not to lay off state workers and to maintain their salaries and pensions in the midst of an historic budget crisis, Jarjura said “I have found that labor, organized labor, wants to be and has been part of the solution and not part of the problem.”

3. Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi really, really, really wants to install electronic, automated highway tolls to boost revenues.

4. When it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy, Jarjura said the Democrat-controlled legislature has “abused the Gold Coast (wealthy Fairfield County)” while Juan Figueroa, former head of the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, said he would look at taxing electric company profits, squeezing more money out of the estate/death tax and targeting bonuses earned by Wall Street executives whose companies received federal bailouts. Everyone else did their best to avoid staking out a firm pro- or anti-tax position, talking about shared sacrifices, but not until spending is under control and not if it makes Connecticut less competative with other states and suggesting studies of the state’s tax structure.

5. Jarjura would work out differences with legislative leaders, Democrat and Republican, over coffee and pastry. Yummy!!!

6. Marconi offered a fun analogy for the current budget crisis. He said: “For the last few years now this state has been at a great dinner. We’re sitting at the table now, the check has come, and we’re all looking at each other trying to figure out who’s going to pay the tab.” He then shouted “electronic highway tolls!!!” Just kidding.

7. Marconi, Jarjura and Lamont are concerned if legislation is passed requiring companies provide paid sick leave it will hurt Connecticut’s business climate. Lamont said: “We have 150,000 people in the state on unpaid permanent leave. It’s called unemployment.” Former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and Figueroa are all for it while Simsbury First Selectwoman Mary Glassman is on the fence.

8. Malloy, Figueroa and Lamont would sign legislation abolishing the death penalty. Retiring Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed an historic bill in 2009 that would have done away with the death penalty in Connecticut. Malloy made the point of saying “there’s always time to take up important issues, regardless of the economy” while Lamont noted as Governor he would not make the death penalty a priority. Marconi and Jarjura would leave the death penalty alone. Glassman is on the fence but said it is a conversation worth having.

9. Malloy believes being mayor of the state’s fifth largest city is akin to being Governor of a small New England state. He then admitted he used to dream about Stamford becoming the 51st state and him being crowned ‘Gover-mayor for Life’. Kidding.

10. Lamont appeared worried that he and his fellow Democrats were shedding viewers, and told the television audience during his final statement: “For those of you who lasted the full hour I congratulate your sense of citizenship.”

And to those of you who read this blog post to the very end, I say “ditto.”

Freshman U.S. Congressman Jim Himes, a Greenwich Democrat, today issued a lengthy statement explaining his intention to vote Sunday in favor of President Obama’s healthcare reform legislation.

One of his Republican opponents – Rob Russo, staffer to former Congressman Chris Shays, the man Himes beat in 2008 – followed up with his own statement urging Himes to vote “no” or pay the price come the November elections.

This is all going down just a few days after Quinnipiac University released a poll that has something for both Himes and Russo.

Russo can point to the poll and make the case that Himes’ vote for healthcare reform is in direct opposition to the views of a 48 percent of those polled, although Himes can take some comfort in knowing 68 percent of those Democrats who responded are in favor of Obama-care. Of course, Republicans can argue “only 68 percent? Wouldn’t you think that number should be higher for a Democratic President’s proposal in a traditionally blue state?”

Connecticut voters also disapprove 52 to 42 percent of the way the President is handling health care, but they trust him more than current Congressional Republicans to handle the matter. And 54 percent say Obama is doing an OK job in the White House – down one percentage point from January.

And Quinnipiac found voters want the next Connecticut U.S. Senator to “generally support” Obama’s policies, 56 to 36 percent, although this doesn’t necessarily reflect Himes’ situation as a freshman Congressman elected to a traditionally Republican-held seat.

Here’s what Himes has to say on his vote, followed by Russo’s statement.

—————————

Friends,

On Sunday, after a year of deliberation, Congress will complete consideration of comprehensive health care reform legislation.

I cannot overstate the urgency of health care reform. Every day, 123 Americans die because they don’t have access to health insurance. And every day, small businesses call my office with stories of doubled premiums, sick workers they cannot afford to insure, or the downright collapse of their business because of a shocking increase in health insurance premiums. And now, opponents of reform are taking advantage of the complexity of this legislation to mislead and scare us.

These opponents argue one of the imperfections in this bill is its cost. My colleague, Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, has recently accused supporters of this bill of hiding its true cost by covering only six years of costs with ten years of revenue. This criticism fails to account for the fact that several of the bill’s most important cost saving benefits – the creation of consumer-friendly exchanges, for example – will take several years and sizable up-front investments before they’re up and running, while many other insurance reforms – like the bans on pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime premium caps – will take effect much sooner.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday estimated that this health care proposal will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the 2010-2019 period and, more importantly, in the ensuing decade, will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion. If the anti-reform criticisms were true, we would expect less savings and more debt in the longer term. The CBO’s analysis clearly debunks these claims.

In fact, many of the official estimates under-predict the actual savings that will result from reform. The CBO is not permitted to take into account future savings that will be realized as a result of changing incentives and expected efficiences in the coming years. Because of this policy, nearly $600 billion in savings over the next decade, as estaimated by leading Harvard economist David Culter in the Wall Street Journal, doesn’t show up in the budget scores. We know – and economists agree – that these cost savings exist.

Nearly every tested idea for reforming Medicare payments is contained in this bill. All of these programs have been proven to lower costs, and the Medicare savings they produce will put significant downward pressure on private insurance premiums as well. These reforms include a pilot program to increase payments for doctors who deliver high-quality care at lower cost, one to deliver bonuses to hospitals that improve patient results after heart bypasses and other major procedures, and another that would give clinicians an incentive to work together to smooth care and reduce complications.

The true cost here is inaction. Health care costs are a clear and present danger to our country. Today, medical care consumes eighteen cents of every dollar we earn. Between 1999 and 2009, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family insurance coverage rose from $5,800 to $13,400, and the average cost per Medicare beneficiary went from $5,500 to $11,900.

If we do nothing, the annual cost of insurance for the average family insurance will go from $15,000 today to over $27,000 in the next ten years, devouring over a fifth of every dollar you earn. Businesses will see their health insurance expenses rise from 10% of total labor costs to 17%; health-related spending will essentially absorb all future wage increases and economic growth; and just as the last Baby Boomers leave the workforce, our national treasury will buckle under $40 trillion in unfunded Medicare costs.

This bill isn’t perfect, but its imperfections have little to do with its costs. Over time, this bill will wring billions of dollars in inefficiency and waste from our system, re-center Medicare on quality over quantity of care, shrink the federal deficit, and open the door for 30 million Americans whom our current system has failed to cover.

Jim

—————————-

RUSSO TO HIMES: VOTE WITH THE PEOPLE, NOT PELOSI The following is a statement from Congressional Candidate Rob Russo:

“Following this process has been interesting, while also very disturbing. We have a Congress who the past few days have stopped talking about the merits of the most significant legislation of our time; stopped talking about the price tag that will bury generations in debt; stopped talking about the fact that it will increase health insurance premiums and limit access; and instead are talking about how to get it passed without making Members actually have to put their name on a vote for it because it will hurt their re-elections. If you have to use a stunt to pass a bill, in order to provide political cover to Representatives because the people don’t like the bill, shouldn’t they just vote ‘no’?

Congressman Himes, the people of the 4th District will not be fooled. If you vote for this–with or without the Slaughter Rule and any other maneuvers developed by your cronies-you will be held accountable. Time to listen to us, not Nancy Pelosi. Vote ‘no’ on this debacle, or the people of the 4th District will vote ‘no’ for you in November.”

The Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday had some interesting statistics on a couple of hot legislative topics here at the capitol.

By a 56 to 40 margin, voters oppose returning tolls to state highways as a source of revenue.

But voters by nearly the same margin – 56 to 39 – want to be able to buy booze on Sundays at liquor stores (they are against letting supermarkets that are already allowed to sell beer to also stock wine and liquor).

State Rep. Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, has been using his position as co-chairman of the legislature’s Transportation Committee to revive tolls, and a bill supporting his efforts passed out of committee Monday.

I asked Guerrera if the results of this week’s Q-Poll have given him second thoughts.

“We’re up five or six percent from last year,” Guerrera said, referring to a March 10, 2009 Q-Poll that found voters opposed tolls by a 61 to 35 percent margin.

“You have to look at how the question’s asked, too,” Guerrera said.

Quinnipiac asked voters simply “do you support or oppose putting tolls on state highways in Connecticut?”

“If we asked ‘would you support tolls if we reduced the gas tax by 50 percent and had a Constitutional amendment to say that would be used for roads and bridges?’ that number would be a lot higher,” Guerrera said.

Just as Guerrera is closely associated with tolls, Sen. Thomas Colapietro, D-Bristol, a General Law Committee chairman, is viewed as one of the key players in preventing his legislative colleagues from overturning Connecticut’s so-called blue law banning liquor stores from opening on Sundays.

I similarly asked Colapietro if the Q-Poll had shaken his resolve.

“Polls are totally unfair,” Colapietro said, arguing, like Guerrera, that it is all about how the question is worded. If Quinnipiac asked voters if they wanted to be allowed to purchase alcohol on Sundays if it meant driving some smaller stores out of business, he is pretty certain the poll results would be different.

“I just don’t think the average person would be so selfish,” Colapietro said.

The percentage of voters who want the option of purchasing booze on Sundays increased from last year, when Q-Poll respondents backed the idea by a margin of 54 to 44.

Thursday’s Q-Poll also did not bode well for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s renewed effort to introduce Keno, an electronic bingo-style gambling game, t0 the state to help raise revenues. Voters oppose Keno by a 58 to 39 margin, up from 2009’s 52 to 45 margin.

I approached the Governor’s office for a response and received the following statement:

During tonight’s televised debate between the Republicans vying for their party’s nomination for Governor, two candidates – First Selectman Tom Marsh of Chester and former Congressman Larry DeNardis – gave what I thought were refreshingly different answers to a couple of questions.

Marsh’s moment came when the candidates were asked if they would support the death penalty. The legislature in 2009 voted to abolish the death penalty but retiring Republican M. Jodi Rell vetoed the bill.

Several of the Republican candidates lumped the death penalty in with all the other “social issues” they said should be put on the back burner while lawmakers grapple with the budget/economy.

“Our main focus in this government should be all hands on deck for job creation,” said Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford. “Many of the other social issues become distractions to the legislature.”

The danger in that response is that Connecticut residents come to their Governor and General Assembly with all kinds of issues. One person’s distraction is some constituent’s passion. It’s not realistic to assume all the other business in Hartford grinds to a halt just because there’s a budget crisis and legislators will start telling constituents their non-economic issues will have to wait for a few sessions before being heard. Safety belts on school buses, anyone?

Marsh was the only candidate to acknowledge this reality.

“The death penalty may not be important to many folks right now but to some in the state it’s extraordinarily important,” he said.

DeNardis delivered a refreshing response when asked about cutting certain state commissions to restructure government and save money. Rell who last year failed to convince the Democratic-majority General Assembly to support some of her ideas, has since proposed creating a bi-partisan commission to come up with a plan to streamline government in time for when the next Governor/General Assembly take office in January.

DeNardis referenced the fact that there have been several government reform studies conducted over the years “all of which are in my library.”

He said he and his team will over the coming months be using existing data to come up with a plan to restructure Connecticut government.

“We will have a proposal on January 3 … and be ready to implement it on Day 1,” DeNardis said.

Perhaps as the campaigns move ahead candidates from both major parties will offer more specifics. But too often when asked about how they plan to cut government they talk about examining the issue once they are sworn in. It’s true that they’re not currently working at the capitol and might not have access to all of the information necessary to make important judgements about merging agencies/eliminating positions. But as DeNardis noted there’s plenty of information available for them to start coming up with ideas today. There’s no need to sit back and wait for Rell’s commission – if it’s ever formed – to do the heavy lifting.

I came up with this during tonight’s just concluded televised debate between the Republican gubernatorial candidates, broadcast by NBC Channel 30. I’m sure it can also be played during tomorrow’s Democratic debate, also hosted by Channel 30, and pretty much any future gubernatorial face-offs.

Take a drink when:

1. Candidates use out-of-date movie references to make a point. Tom Foley of Greenwich referred to the Democrat-controlled General Assembly as “No Action Jackson” when dealing with the budget crisis. Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton referred to legislators as gremlins from the movie of the same name as in “if you give them money their bad ideas and policies will multiply.” Subscribe to Netflix, guys.

2. Candidates awkwardly give out their campaign websites when answering questions.

3. Candidates awkwardly try to apply otherwise noteworthy prior experience when answering questions, such as when Newington Mayor Jeff Wright said as a U.S. Marine he has “the courage and stamina” needed to go to Hartford and make tough budget cuts. Not knocking his military service, but that just seemed like an odd time to mention it.

4. Candidates use overly dramatic language, such as when C. Duffy Acevedo, referring to his campaign, said “the reason I make this journey” and when Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh called a proposal for a regional sales tax “an abomination.”

5. Candidates ignore a question and, instead, re-iterate what they believe to be more important talking points, as just about every one of the Republicans did when asked if they support the death penalty.

6. The moderator, in this case Gerry Brooks, kindly reminds the candidates to answer the questions they are asked and not stray from the topic.

7. Candidates DO NOT somehow work job creation and making Connecticut more business-friendly into their answers, regardless of the question.

8. Candidates proudly mention their involvement in an organization that your average voter has never heard of, such as when former Congressman Larry DeNardis referenced his time as president of the
Connecticut Public Expenditure Council.

9. Candidates refer to lawmakers in Hartford as political insiders and themselves as outsiders. Take two drinks if the candidate referring to himself or herself as a Hartford outsider is a mayor/first selectman.

10. Take a drink when the candidate doing the talking IS NOT from Fairfield County and/or Greenwich.

And for actual coverage of the debate, read my colleague, Ken Dixon’s report here.

I stopped by a retail business in Stamford earlier this afternoon and, while standing near the register, heard an employee and another customer – sounded like a regular – discussing the race for retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s seat.

Their conversation went something like this:

Employee: “I can’t believe Linda McMahon, whose family founded/runs Stamford-based WWE, is currently ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. That’s pathetic.”

Customer: “I don’t know much about her.”

Employee: Laughing. “C’mon! She’s married to Vince McMahon (who not only runs WWE but is also known for his on-screen antics in company storylines). That’s all you need to know.”

Customer: “Well, she built up a business here in Connecticut that employs around 500 people so that’s got to count for something. She has made an investment in this state.”

Then there was some discussion about how outsiders like McMahon are inevitably co-opted by the insider culture in Washington D.C. and general agreement that Dodd must go.

Customer: “I just hope they can find someone to beat Dodd.”

Employee: “He’s not running.”

Customer: “Really? I didn’t know that.”

The Business Council of Fairfield County has scheduled its annual breakfast forum featuring Democratic and Republican leaders of the General Assembly for next Wednesday, 7:45 a.m. at the Stamford Plaza Hotel and Conference Center.

All of the details are below. And below the details I’ve posted a report on last year’s event to give folks who have not participated a flavor of how these forums typically work.

Wednesday’s forum should be particularly interesting in light of the gubernatorial race and the state’s continued economic/budget woes. Business leaders expressed frustration with their representatives during a similar breakfast in Danielson on Wednesday.

If you read my story from last year, you’ll find House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero (R-Norwalk) expressing skepticism about Democrats’ promises to streamline government. He was right. The majority party made little to no progress last year in actually downsizing the size of Connecticut’s bureaucracy. We’ll see what new promises they make Wednesday.

————————–

The Business Council of Fairfield County will host Connecticut’s Legislative Leadership on Wednesday, March 24th at the Stamford Plaza Hotel & Conference Center from 7:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.

The breakfast will feature Senate President Pro Tempore Don Williams (D – Brooklyn), House Speaker Christopher Donovan (D-Meriden), House Minority Leader Larry Cafero (R-Norwalk) and Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore John McKinney (F-Fairfield) who will share their priorities and their predictions for the current legislative session.

We are a month into the Connecticut 2010 Legislative session and estimates of the deficit for this year and the subsequent fiscal year keep rising. Rising to the tune of over $4 billion for FY 2011-12.

Last week, Gov. Rell released her deficit mitigation plan prompting a Hartford Courant editorial that declared she’s already in retirement. This week, a group of 15 moderate Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Donovan and Senate President Pro Tem William requesting serious action on the state’s ballooning debt without the use of debt to bond operating costs.

And while California’s debt crisis has monopolized the headlines, Connecticut’s debt per capita is well above that of California’s.  With 2 months left of the legislative session what serious action, if any, will be taken?

Hear directly from the Democratic and Republican leadership how Connecticut will rise to the challenge and what that rise may cost us and the state.

Reservations for Business Council members are $45 per person, or $450 for a table of ten. YPN members are $35. The non-member rate is $55 per person. Reservations and further information may be obtained by contacting The Business Council at 203-359-3220.

—————————

3/31/09
Williams: Higher taxes ‘on the table”
Democrats’ budget plan to be $1B leaner
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
STAMFORD — State Democrats will propose more than $2 billion in spending cuts for the coming two fiscal years, and increases in income and sales taxes are likely when they unveil their budget Thursday.
State Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, told members of the Business Council of Fairfield County at a legislative breakfast Monday that the budget plan will include about $1 billion in spending cuts in 2009-10 and the same in 2010-11.
“There will absolutely have to be very deep cuts in spending,” Williams said. “It’s not going to be pretty. No one is going to have a parade for the legislature at the end of this session.”
Williams did not provide details about the cuts and avoided discussing changes in tax policy. He hinted strongly that “significant revenue adjustments” are part of the plan.
“Are we raising taxes on the wealthy? What are defined as ‘the wealthy?’ Are we changing business taxation?” said Joe McGee, vice president of public policy for the business council.
Williams provided no insight but spoke of the Democrats’ efforts to apportion the “shared sacrifice” needed to address the deficit “in as fair a way as possible.” The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates the state budget deficit at $8.7 billion for fiscal 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The legislature has to “do better” than when it cut smaller deficits in the early 1990s and 2002 using a ratio of 50 percent tax increases, 30 percent spending cuts and 20 percent borrowing, Williams said.
“That gives you some idea how Connecticut approached this in previous years,” Williams said.
He would like to avoid borrowing now, he said.
He compared Connecticut’s deficit problem to that of California, which boosted income and sales taxes.
“We are right up there, almost identical in terms of the scope of our problem,” Williams said.
In New York, lawmakers Monday announced a budget deal to raise income taxes for three years on households earning more than $300,000.
A progressive income tax for Connecticut is “on the table, absolutely,” along with “some changes to the sales tax,” Williams said.
He would not say what income levels would be taxed higher.
“That’s to be determined between now and Thursday,” he said.
In 2007, state Democrats tried to pass an income tax on households earning more than $250,000. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed the bill when lawmakers from Stamford and Norwalk fought the tax hike.
Williams would not discuss how the Democrats’ plan might affect businesses and tax credits.
“It’s fluid right now,” Williams said. “We’re running different scenarios.”
The minority leaders, state Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield, and state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said government should be cut as much as possible before tax hikes are considered.
“We’re going to need both layoffs and concessions if we’re going to emerge from this economic crisis,” McKinney said. “It’s the only way.”
The state should stop delivering social services and turn that over to private nonprofit providers who do it well for less pay and benefits, he said, estimating that would save $300 million to $400 million.
Cafero touted Rell’s budget proposals, such as merging the departments of education and higher education and eliminating several commissions. But tax increases are likely in the future, he said.
“We have to do all we can now to avoid the tax increases, knowing they’re going to come down the road,” Cafero said.
He is skeptical about the Democrats’ claim that they want to streamline government, given they never found $220 million in savings they pledged to find to get the state out of the red in fiscal 2008-09, Cafero said.
“Here it is, the 30th of March. We’ve yet to find that money,” Cafero said.
The Appropriations Committee has until April 6 to do that.
“That $220 million we’re confident we’ll find,” Williams said.