Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

You’d think a governor might not choose the day after a poll showed even fellow Democrats aren’t enthusiastic about his stewardship for his transportation department to announce train and bus fare hikes.

But this is Gov. Dannel “Polls Come and Go” Malloy we’re talking about, so here you go, commuters.

Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton, ranking member of the legislature’s Transportation Committee, is already fuming…

“While I commend the Department of Transportation for not cutting services for those who desperately need them, I am concerned that a fare hike of more than 15% over three years is being instituted during a time of such financial distress. The increase of more than 5% during each of the next three years may seem better than the potential 16% in the first year that was proposed, but this fare hike was not suggested during the normal budget process and was only later threatened as a response to a (state union) concession package that was in jeopardy. Once the concession package was accepted this increase should have been taken off the table. After all, these are the same commuters that just received the largest tax increase in Connecticut history.”

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, Rep. Bruce Morris, D-Norwalk and one of U.S. Congressman Jim Himes’, D-Greenwich staffers tried today to put a face on the ongoing debate over federal winter heating aid.

As we’ve reported over the past couple of weeks, the White House and Congress are expected to dramatically slash the annual Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, leaving states like Connecticut scrambling to figure out how to divvy up their smaller pots of money among an ever needier population.

Critics fear the impact in particular on the elderly, and Duff and his colleagues had found a 91-year-old Norwalk resident willing to talk to the media about it.

That, apparently, was yesterday, when the 2:30 p.m. event was announced.

Today’s press conference was still held outside of the woman’s Spruce Street home, but she remained indoors as the politicians and a pair of local senior advocates spoke. The elderly homeowner eventually emerged to ask us to get off of her lawn.

And then a few minutes later it began to pour.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Swung by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s temporary offices at Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport today, set up to help folks seeking financial aid for damages from Tropical Storm-turned-Hurricane Irene.

My job was essentially to ask visitors how it feels to be picking up the pieces of their lives while Congress dithers over exactly how to fund FEMA.

Bumped into a talkative local cabinet maker who declined to give his name, but said he had already gotten FEMA cash and the agency contacted him about potentially receiving more for some lost/damaged tools.

The kicker? He supports U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas for president. That’s the same Ron Paul who Connecticut’s governor recently called an idiot for his anti-FEMA views.

The cabinet maker said yes, he is aware of his candidate’s positions on FEMA. He said Congress wouldn’t be having a funding battle if the country implemented another of Paul’s platforms – bringing the troops home.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A trio of legislative committees Tuesday will hold a public hearing on Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy’s proposal to deal with a major cut in federal winter heating aid by disqualifying low-income electric and gas users who benefitted in the past.

The administration figures since electric and gas customers are by law protected from shutoffs between Nov. 1 and May 1, it makes more sense to give the limited federal bucks to households that heat with oil and propane.

Critics argue that is an unfair approach.

Just a few minutes ago Joseph Rosenthal, lead attorney for the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which advocates for all utility customers, said it is also potentially illegal.

“I think it may be illegal because you’re supposed to have in the law a nondiscriminatory basic benefit,” Rosenthal said. “In the past we’ve had some skewing of (heating aid) toward oil customers in recognition of different circumstances. The problem in my perspective with the approach being suggested here is that the law refers to basic benefits … A basic benefit of zero is not a benefit, so that is very much something that we think ought to be explored further.”

Rosenthal is referring to Section E of State Statutes 16a-41a governing release of the federal heating grants:  (E) Design of a basic grant for eligible households that does not discriminate against such households based on the type of energy used for heating;

Rosenthal plans to testify at Tuesday’s 3 p.m. hearing in Hartford.

I’ve got calls in to the Malloy administration for a response. They’ve got a bunch of crack lawyers so I’m sure they considered this before making the proposal.

UPDATE:

Andrew McDonald, Malloy’s chief counsel, just got back to me and said Rosenthal is incorrect.

“Mr. Rosenthal never reached out to this office before opining on this plan but he is fundamentally mistaken about the nature of the proposal,” McDonald said.

He argued that in defining the federal grants as “crisis” and “safety net” assistance, the Malloy administration can shift the money to a certain type of energy user without violating the statute.

“Under the proposal there is a reorientation of benefits from basic benefits to crisis assistance and safety net assistance,” McDonald said. “We’re talking about a $75 million shortfall in revenues for the program that will require a radical reorientation of the program. This proposal recognizes the fiscal realities of those federal dollars.”

UPDATE 2: Rosenthal said he is familiar with the administration’s argument and it is flawed. I’m sure there will be more to come…

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Two years ago state Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, made an unsuccessful attempt to pass a bill preventing Connecticut from participating in the controversial federal Real ID program.

Yesterday state and federal officials held a press conference in Hartford promoting the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Oct. 3 launch of Real ID, which essentially creates a special driver’s license for easier access to planes and to some federal buildings.

I put in a call to Maynard to gauge his response.

“I’m not thrilled about it,” Maynard said.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes Real ID and believes due to a lack of funding and because other states have opted out, the initiative will never actually get off of the ground.

Maynard said it was a Libertarian constituent who first brought the issue to his attention back in 2009.

“I’m not entirely given over to this hyper-security concern that’s sort of the aftermath of 9/11, but it is what we’re being asked to implement,” Maynard said. “The (DMV) Commissioner has agreed to set it up. I think it will be somewhat burdensome to our citizens.”

Maynard stressed participation remains an option.

“If you don’t want to do it, don’t,” Maynard said.

For more information, click here to visit the DMV’s website, here for a report on Real ID issued in March by Connecticut’s Office of Legislative Research, and here for more about opposition to Real ID.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

We reported in March on the state Department of Motor Vehicles’ successful efforts to delay implementation of the controversial federal Real ID program in Connecticut.

How time flies. The October 3 launch date is almost upon us and the DMV, as fellow Hearst colleague Ken Dixon reports, is working in earnest to notify drivers of what it means for the license renewal process.

Long story short, if you want the special gold star on your license giving you higher federal security clearance, you’ve got to provide more paperwork.

For more information, visit the DMV website here.

The American Civil Liberties Union is not a fan of Real ID and, at least in 2009, neither was state Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, who co-sponsored a bill prohibiting Connecticut from complying.

Maynard is now chairman of the legislature’s transportation committee. I’ve got a call in to his office to gauge his current thoughts on Real ID.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Stories like the one our Hearst newspapers published this weekend about cuts to federal heating aid have Connecticut officials firing off letters to the decision-makers in Washington D.C.

If only the heat being generated by deficit-reduction fever could be used to warm households this winter…

First Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s office today released a letter he co-signed with other New England governors. Here’s the text:

————

As our states prepare for the coming winter heating season, we are deeply concerned over reports that the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding in FY2012 could be reduced by as much as 50 percent. This reduction would jeopardize meaningful assistance for the most vulnerable low income households struggling to pay unaffordable home energy bills. We recognize that you face difficult budget decisions in the coming days. However, as home heating fuel prices continue their upward trend, we respectfully urge you to support LIHEAP funding at the level of $5.1 billion, the last level Congress authorized.

Households in the Northeast face some of the nation’s highest home heating bills due to the long winter heating season and heating fuel prices that typically exceed national average prices regardless of the fuel used. Households in our states are more likely to be dependent on expensive delivered fuels, such as home heating oil or propane. In August, home heating oil prices in the Northeast were approximately $3.80/gallon – a 15 percent increase over 2008 prices and a more than 25 percent increase over 2010. The Energy Information Administration projects that the price of home heating oil will reach $4.00/gallon this winter. At these prices, the cost of filling a typical tank is over $1,000.

If LIHEAP funding in FY2012 is reduced to the level of $2.57 billion, our states will be required to take drastic measures that will endanger the most vulnerable LIHEAP households. As outlined in the enclosed fact sheet prepared by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), these include reducing benefit levels from 25 to up to 50 percent, tightening eligibility standards, or delaying payments until the coldest part of the winter or shutting the program down when the weather is still cold. Each option holds potential risks for the households, particularly the 60 percent of LIHEAP households in the Northeast with income below the federal poverty level of $15,000 for a two-person household. Changing LIHEAP eligibility standards could cut off households from other public and private assistance such as shut off moratoriums and assistance with paying down arrearages. If the basic LIHEAP benefit is reduced as much as 50 percent this winter, it would not cover the cost of the minimum delivery required by home heating fuel dealers.

We urge you to support a funding level of $5.1 billion in FY2012 so that this vital program can continue to offer modest yet urgently needed relief to millions of our nation’s most vulnerable households struggling with unaffordable energy bills.

————

Then state Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, issued a letter he has sent to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio:

————

Dear Speaker Boehner,

Each year, more than 100,000 Connecticut families rely upon the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to assist in paying their winter heating bills.

Recently, there have been proposals to seriously cut the funding that is going into this program by the federal government.

Although I understand the need to cut costs, I believe that this is simply not a cut worth making. This cut would be simply devastating.

I urge you to work to keep this funding in place for the thousands of families in Connecticut that depend upon this funding to stay warm in the winter.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

It was pretty clear early on in his first term Attorney General George Jepsen was bringing a different style to the role than fellow Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who after two decades left the job in January after a successful campaign for U.S. Senator.

Blumenthal was more confrontational and more populist, known for launching investigations and lawsuits and touting them in the press.

Then news came a few weeks ago that Jepsen was quietly closing hundreds of whistle-blower cases his predecessor had kept open, again breaking with past tradition.

Today Jepsen’s office went out of its way to issue an explanation why he’s taken the decidedly non-Blumenthal approach to a federal effort to block AT&T’s acquistion of T-Mobile, declining to join the effort.

———-

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL GEORGE JEPSEN

CONCERNING AT&T ACQUISITION OF T-MOBILE

For immediate release                                                               FRIDAY,  SEPT. 16, 2011

“Today the U. S. Department of Justice announced that it has added several states to the complaint it originally filed on Aug. 31, to block AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile.  Although my office has determined not to join the complaint, I recognize that the proposed acquisition raises serious antitrust issues and I applaud the Department of Justice for aggressively moving to ensure a competitive market. As Co-Chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Antitrust Task Force, I am committed to ensuring open and competitive markets in Connecticut.  Given the significant resources that the federal government has dedicated to the case, my decision not to join this antitrust lawsuit was based on an election to focus the limited resources of my Office and Connecticut’s antitrust enforcement efforts on other matters.”