Comments(7)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes – the state’s budget czar – is out with a scathing rebuttal to the GOP’s alternative state budget plan.

You can read it below.

-Barnes

Barnes, who has had a long professional relationship with Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, is proving to be far more combative in his role than mild-mannered predecessor Robert “Bob” Genuario.

-Genuario

Remember last month when Barnes dressed down a major credit agency for downgrading the state’s rating?

Genuario worked for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and is now a judge in Stamford. Sure he’d come to her defense. But it was not unusual during an interview for Genuario to make a comment critical of legislative Democrats, only to seconds later decide he didn’t want it publicized or wanted to choose his words more carefully. He wasn’t keen on playing the partisan attack dog.

Barnes clearly doesn’t mind getting down and dirty.

-Angry Genuario

-Angry Barnes

Here’s Barnes’ statement on the GOP proposal:

“For 16 years under Republican governors, Rep. Cafero and Sen. McKinney held exactly zero press conferences to highlight the financial games the governors from their party were playing.  Zero.  If they’d spoken up then, they’d have more credibility now. 

Governor Malloy has spent his first 13 months in office trying to clean up the mess from those 16 years, and he has made substantial progress.  But the hole they dug was deep, so there’s more cleaning up to do.  And this Administration is committed to doing it.

Every budget submitted over the decade before Governor Malloy took office showed deficits in the out-years.  For reasons only the Republican leadership can explain, Governor Malloy is being held to a higher standard than his predecessors.  We appreciate Senator McKinney’s confidence.

The 5.7% growth rate cited by Senator McKinney is for growth in our tax base, not overall economic growth.  Economic growth in Connecticut’s tax base is always greater than growth in the overall economy when the economy is growing, and lower than the overall economy during downturns.  For instance, in 2009 our tax base shrunk by 11%, according to the date data provided today by the Republicans.  If our economy had shrunk that much we would have 30% unemployment.  Sen. McKinney and Rep. Cafero have been around a long time.  They should know better.

The Governor’s budgets have average growth that is 10% lower than the spending under Governor Rell and almost 20% lower than under Rowland.  Our growth projections are 3.8%, compared to 4.5% and 4.8% respectively under the two previous Republican Administrations. 

The Republicans are constantly looking for ways to say Connecticut isn’t doing well. They should instead note how much we’ve accomplished in little more than a year and so help make us more attractive to people and businesses from elsewhere.

The budget is under the spending cap because of almost $120 million in cuts.  If the Republicans have other specific cuts they wish to offer, they should communicate those to us and to the Appropriations Committee. They can start with identifying cuts to pay for the new spending they propose.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk and state Rep./U.S. Senate candidate William Tong, D-Stamford have scheduled a meeting of the legislative banks committee they co-chair to review the terms of that $25 billion multistate settlement with mortgage servicers.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen was a key figure in the deal, which critics nationwide argue did not go far enough to hold big banks accountable.

———-

Jepsen To Explain Details Of $25 Billion Award

At 2 P.M. Tuesday, Feb. 21, In Room 1C Of LOB

At the request of its chairmen, Rep. William Tong (D-Stamford, New Canaan) and Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), the Banks Committee will hold an informational hearing Tuesday during which Attorney General George Jepsen will explain the details of the $25 billion settlement of a multi-state lawsuit against the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers.

Under the terms of the settlement, Connecticut homeowners and the state will receive more than $190 million because of the mortgage servicers’ foreclosure abuses and fraud, and unacceptable nationwide mortgage servicing practices.

The hearing will begin at 2 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 21, in Room 1C of the Legislative Office Building.  

WHAT:           Banks Committee hearing on $25 billion foreclosure lawsuit settlement

WHEN:           2 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 21

WHERE:        Room 1C, Legislative Office Building, Hartford

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford has again turned to a prominent member of the Asian-American community to help boost his campaign for the party’s U.S. Senate nomination.

Tong, the first Asian-American elected to the Connecticut General Assembly, has touted endorsements from ex-U.S. Secretary of Commerce/Transportation Norman Mineta and San Fransico Mayor Ed Lee.

Today the campaign sent out a fundraising email trying to capitalize on the popularity of Jeremy Lin, the New York Knicks basketball star who, like Tong, is the successful son of Chinese immigrants.

“He’s living the American Dream,” Tong wrote. “Lots of people across Connecticut feel like underdogs in this economy. Too many people feel like the American Dream is out of reach. My campaign is about Reclaiming the American Dream – making the fight fair again.”

No mention of a Lin endorsement, however.

Tong’s approach caught the attention today of Politico and Huffington Post.

The candidate needs to find creative ways to increase his donations when he is lagging behind both his major competitors for the Senate nomination – U.S. Rep Chris Murphy and ex-Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz.

As Tong notes in his email, Lin’s finally arrived after “a decade of hard work and confidence against the odds.”

Some Democrats say Tong’s a star, too, but with Murphy and Bysiewicz in the race, not this year. 

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s administration will find a way to restore education dollars to Norwalk cut from the proposed budget.

How much of the lost $650,000 still needs to be clarified.

Norwalk is home to House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero and is the only municipality losing aid under the governor’s new fiscal plan.

“I think the governor is committed to restoring the money,” Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy’s senior advisor, said this afternoon. “Not in the same form. Singling out a town, which is what had been the case, for a single stream of education funding is not fair.”

That’s what legislators did for Malloy’s hometown of Stamford in 2009, but more on that later in this post.

At issue is a 2007 budget deal Norwalk legislators and House GOP Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero in particular cut with then-Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Democratic leaders.

Norwalk and Stamford, where Malloy served for 14 years as mayor, have constantly complained they do not receive their fair share of education grants despite being large cities. So during 2007′s push in Hartford to increase school aid for everyone, Norwalk’s bipartisan delegation convinced the powers at the capitol to correct the perceived imbalance and tweak statutory language in the city’s favor. It was a tweak worth $650,000.

This wasn’t a secret. Our Hearst newspapers in fact reported Cafero took the credit for pushing the matter during negotiations that involved Rell’s budget chief, Robert Genuario, a former state senator from Norwalk. 

Earlier this week Cafero, knowing Malloy pledged during his Feb. 8 budget address no muncipality would lose money for schools, noticed a cut to his city. Specifically while Norwalk gains more money under Malloy’s plan, it loses the additional $650,000, leaving a negative balance of $72,000.

Cafero went public with his concerns on Valentine’s Day. Occhiogrosso told the Associated Press Cafero cut a “back-room budget deal” with Rell that must be cancelled.

“As a result of that deal, he was promised that Norwalk would be treated differently than the other 168 cities and towns. What he promised in return you’ll have to ask him,” Occhiogrosso said.

But when Democratic leaders in the General Assembly needed to secure votes in 2009 for an income tax hike, they singled out Stamford for an education aid increase and offered additional budget perks to gain the support of tax-wary Sen. Andrew McDonald.

Malloy was wrapping up his final term.

And when Rell in late 2009 singled out that aid in a round of budget cuts, Stamford lawmakers cried foul.

“We feel very strongly that it’s a question of fairness — that what we did was correct a discrepancy that existed,” Rep. Gerald Fox said. “And we’ll fight to keep it in.”

Genuario at the time sounded an awful lot like Occhigrosso when he defended Rell’s decision.

“It’s the only increase … that any of the 169 municipalities received,” Genuario said. “It stood out … And there does not appear to be a formulaic basis for it.”

Occhiogrosso today maintained Norwalk’s deal remains uniquely inappropriate because it involved a change in statute.

“This was done as the result of a backroom deal,” he said. “And it’s not the way decisions on education funding should be made.”

Still, Occhiogrosso said, ”The governor made a commitment to hold cities and towns harmless on education funding.”

What remains unclear is whether the governor will restore the full $650,000 or the lesser, $72,000 amount or something in-between.

Helping Cafero’s cause this week have been legislative Democrats from Norwalk also upset with Malloy’s cut to their city.

“Any legislator wants to do all they can for their communities,” Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said. “You don’t want to go backward, you want to go forward. We’ve worked hard to maintain what we’ve had. To go backward is not very appealing.”

He added, “My feeling is we’re going to be able to restore the $650,000 with the governor’s help.”

UPDATE: Occhiogrosso’s cagey on exactly how much Norwalk’s getting.

From his email this morning to me: 

“(The governor’s) intent for Norwalk is the same as his intent for the other 168 cities and towns: to make sure the state does the best it can in addressing the educational needs of the children who go to public schools in Norwalk.  What exactly that means in terms of dollars will be determined in the coming weeks.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

If you’ve been paying attention to the news this week, you’ll know several prominent arts organizations are up in arms over Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed changes to their funding.

Here’s a weekend column on the matter from Hearst colleague Ken Dixon, plus articles from the CT Mirror and Hartford Courant.

Rather than doling out the traditional annual earmarks to these cultural groups, Malloy wants them to compete for a pot of cash.

Malloy’s intentions may have caught arts leaders by surprise, but this is not a new battle for them.

Back in 2007 then-Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who retired from office a year ago, faced similar criticism when she put the same idea on the table.

Rell’s “cultural treasures” bill would have forced 16 attractions that had been guaranteed money for several years to compete with smaller groups for grants.

At the time the state had paid out $9.4 million in total to these groups. Rell’s 2008 budget proposed $10 million. The cultural attractions would have received $5 million of that and then have had to compete for a share of the remaining $5 million. Then in 2009 the entire $10 million would have been up for grabs.

Rell spokesman Christopher Cooper at the time said the goal was to ensure more accountability, but legislative Democrats ultimately killed the idea, to the great delight of the arts community.

Ben Barnes, Malloy’s budget czar, made similar comments to Cooper’s in a press release issued this afternoon addressing the current controversy.

“Our goals in making these changes are simple – we want to create a system that demands accountability standards and sets performance benchmarks for organizations that receive state money,” Barnes said. ” The current system of simply allocating an earmark does not do that.”

Here’s Barnes’ full email:

———-

I would like to clarify any misunderstandings about the proposal to change the way the State funds arts organizations.

Let me be clear, the proposed budget does not eliminate funding for arts organizations. 

Our goals in making these changes are simple – we want to create a system that demands accountability standards and sets performance benchmarks for organizations that receive state money.  The current system of simply allocating an earmark does not do that.  It does not ask the organization to disclose how that money is being spent, how much the funding provided by the state contributes to the entirety of that organization’s budget or how many people take part in a given exhibit or event. 

The system we want to work toward will demand that accountability, and the competitive nature by which the grants will be allocated could in fact increase funding for some groups.  And just as importantly, it will let taxpayers know that their hard earned dollars are going to worthwhile projects that enrich their lives and make Connecticut a more attractive place to live and to visit – projects that truly rely on state funding. 

We are asking for sacrifices from groups across the spectrum, including many state agencies.  I believe these are reasonable asks for any group that receives state money during these incredibly challenging fiscal times.

Coming from local government, I appreciate that some arts and cultural organizations depend on the earmarked state grants and that they build their budgets around it. We appreciate their need for continuity of funding.  To that end, the Department of Economic and Community Development will develop a phase-in approach for funding in FY 2013 that guarantees existing earmark recipients will receive 80% of the allocation they received the prior year, with the remainder being allocated on competitive basis.  Commissioner Smith will provide more details in March about that process.

In addition, we will work with the legislature to segregate funding for arts and cultural organizations from the tourism marketing account in order to clarify our objective that this funding be used to support arts organizations.

This administration has a strong track record of negotiating on contentious issues, including the state budget.  We are always willing to discuss our proposals with advocates for the arts and look forward to a solution that will meet our goals while maintaining important cultural institutions.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Earlier I posted about a press conference held by state Senate Democratic leaders and their energy committee chairman on ideas for improving how utilities respond to major storms.

I noted that curiously absent from the event were Democrats from the House of Representatives, even though supposedly everyone agrees on the legislative remedies needed to prevent the long-term outages suffered in August and October.

Doesn’t mean anything, I was told by the Senate Democrats. We’re all one big happy family of Democrats here in the legislature, focused on keeping the power flowing to ratepayers.

But Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, an energy committee chair, said she was not made aware of today’s proposal by her co-chair, Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford or by Senate leaders. Nor, she said, was she asked to attend the press conference.

“I haven’t actually seen the proposal until this afternoon … I’m not commenting on it because I haven’t had the full ability to read through it,” Nardello said. “We may be totally on board with the proposals that came out of the Senate, but I can’t answer that without having looked at them carefully. The best process is to have a joint press conference.”

The energy committee has notoriously been run by folks who don’t agree on policy.

All eyes will be on Nardello and Fonfara this session to see what storm response reforms they’re able to pass before the General Assembly adjourns May 9.

So far they’re not off to a promising start.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Connecticut regulators have just begun reviewing Northeast Utilities’ proposed merger with Massachusetts-based NSTAR.

But Massachusetts has been grappling with this issue for a while. Just a few minutes ago that state’s Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, announced at a press conference that his administration has agreed to bless the union in return for some concessions:

1. The electricity distribution rate is capped at current levels for the next four years.

2. NSTAR will credit $21 million to 1.6 million customers, both residential and business. That amount represents half of the estimated savings NSTAR is expected to gain through the merger and cannot be recovered through higher rates. 

3. Also 27.5 percent of NSTAR’s power has to be clean energy purchased through Patrick’s Cape Wind wind project off of Cape Cod.

Patrick, however, in what might be viewed as a blow to Connecticut, said his administration will not slow the approval process to determine the impact the NU and NSTAR joining will have on storm response.

Connecticut regulators, who last year decided to leave the merger in Massachusetts’ hands, reversed course a few weeks ago, in part over the public outcry that followed NU subsidiary Connecticut Light & Power’s flawed response to August’s Tropical Storm Irene and the October 29 nor’easter.

There had been a call in Massachusetts for state regulators to also weigh storm response, , but Patrick today said that is a separate matter from the merger.

“What happened after those storms was unacceptable and there will be accountability,” Patrick added.

The deal still requires the approval of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities.

NU and NSTAR have a self-imposed deadline of April 16 to finalize their deal. Connecticut regulators have pledged, despite only launching their analysis last month, to conclude it early enough so as not to disrupt the companies’ timeline.

UPDATE: The Boston Globe is characterizing the deal as a major victory for Patrick and also wondering how Connecticut will react.

UPDATE 2: Al Lara, spokesman for Northeast Utilities, said, “There’s a provision in the agreement that essentially approval in Massachusetts will be held until it is finalized in Connecticut.”

UPDATE 3: Our full report.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Senate Democrats this morning held a press conference to highlight their proposals for turning the lights on faster following major storms like August’s Irene and the October 29 nor’easter.

Their ideas – establishing utility performance standards and related penalties, improving tree maintenance and upgrading infrastructure – mirror the various concepts lawmakers have been floating all winter after it took Connecticut Light & Power so long to restore electricity after the August and October storms.

That now brings the total number of Democratic political entities vying for credit for improving storm response in Connecticut to three.

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy has already submitted his own storm response legislation.

And House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, a congressional candidate in the 5th District, along with Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, an energy committee chair, have pledged to pursue a variety of reforms.

Today’s press conference was hosted by Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, Nardello’s energy cochair.

I asked Fonfara if the fact the Senate Democrats submitted a separate plan from Malloy’s, coupled with the absence of any House members at today’s press conference, was an indication of divisions over how to proceed. Capitol observers also know it is not uncommon for the Senate and House leaders of the energy committee to be at odds over major reform initiatives.

“There is absolutely no division. We’re in lockstep working with the governor on this. My cochair has spoken extensively on this. This is the Senate Democrats’ proposal. These are not issues that are controversial in the sense there is partisan separation between houses, between the administration and the legislature,” Fonfara said.

But some additional comments by Fonfara indicate before the legislative session is over we’ll see a debate among lawmakers over how tough the state should be on utility companies.

“I don’t think most people in this state are interested in penalizing the utilities for the sake of penalizing them,” Fonfara said.

Nardello and Donovan, for example, wanted to explore not only fining utilities for poor performance but tying executive pay to performance.

Fonfara said everything is on the table, but added, “The one thing you don’t want to do is to have such a chilling effect that you see a negative impact on who wants to work here in our state … For every action their will be a reaction.”