Political Capitol

Word began circulating this afternoon that Senate Democrats were poised possibly tomorrow to offer an amendment they believe will end the current and any future debates between the General Assembly and Governor over the size of the state’s deficit.

In February Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, after she and her budget staff said publicly the two-year deficit was close to $8 billion, presented what many considered a fishy, no-tax-increase two-year budget crafted around a $6 billion figure.

The Democrats have been relying on the $8.7 billion deficit estimate from the non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis and continually accusing Rell of low-balling her figure so the majority party would have to take the heat for proposing deeper cuts and tax hikes.

Rell’s budget staff recently upped its projection to $7.95 billion.

Democrats have continually complained the differing deficits have made it harder to get all sides around the bargaining table to agree to a two year budget.

The amendment, once passed into law, would immediately require Rell’s budget staff and the Office of Fiscal Analysis to lock themselves in a room and do whatever it takes to emerge with an agreed-upon figure. Failing that, the state Comptroller – currently Democrat Nancy Wyman – would play Solomon and split the baby to come up with a final deficit number all sides could work with. It’s called “consensus forecasting” and, according to the Democrats, is used in 26 states.

“You have an agreed upon deficit so everyone knows what the goal is. That’s essential,” Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, told reporters during a visit today to the capitol press room.

In future years the process would begin in the November prior to the coming year’s legislative session, with the Governor’s and OFA’s number crunchers updating the concensus forecast every few months.

Rell budget director Robert Genuario of Norwalk and House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, during separate visits to the press room today made it clear they don’t like the amendment.

“Our initial reaction to this is it’s a major distraction. The state needs a budget. Not a distraction,” Genuario said.

He said the existing, sometimes messy process – his office comes up with deficit or surplus projections, OFA comes up with deficit or surplus projections, at some point down the road everyone agrees to a number and a budget gets passed – has traditionally worked well and there’s no reason to futz around with it.

“This is a year unlike most,” Genuario said. “We ought not to throw out a process that’s worked for us for many years because of a current year political dispute.”

He also said Wyman’s office does not have the expertise to weigh in on projections. The Comptroller, Genuario said, deals well with the numbers-of-the day, but is not set up to produce forecasts.

Cafero accused Williams of being obsessed with the differences in the deficit projections since Rell first used the $6 billion number. He said if everyone agrees on a minimum deficit – that it’s at the least now $7.95 billion – there is nothing stopping the sides from dealing with that number.

Cafero acknowledged there is a benefit to establishing some sort of a process that gets everyone working from the same page, but in the event that’s not possible, “why stop cold?”

Regardless of the merits of the amendment, if Rell and the Republicans oppose it, the best the Democrats can do is try and make a very public point and score some political points by bringing it up for a debate and a vote.

But that is simply going to further sour already strained relations at the capitol, prolonging the current budget stand-off – the very issue the Democrats say this amendment is aimed at solving.

With the legislative session entering it’s final week, I started wondering what the heck was going on with the wild animal ban lawmakers proposed following February’s chimp attack in Stamford.

Quick recap: Travis, a 400 pound chimpanzee who had been a local celebrity of sorts, suddenly attacked his owner’s friend, Charla Nash, causing grisly injuries. The animal was shot dead by Stamford cops. The story made national and international headlines.

Travis was grandfathered into a 2004 state law (which was never really implemented) that required wild animals be registered with the Department of Environmental Protection.

After the tragic mauling, state lawmakers proposed a bill banning a long list of wild and exotic animals and requiring anyone who currently owned one to give it up.

Turns out the proposal has lost momentum as legislators wrestle with questions of implementation like what exactly are residents supposed to do with the soon-to-be-outlawed critters?

Sure a big cat might be sent to a preserve or a circus or something. But what about that guy or that “different” teenager who has a glass tank in his room with a tarantula or a scorpion or one of those poisonous snakes that made the DEP’s proposed “do not own” list? They’re out there. Pet stores sell live crickets for a reason, right?

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Department of Environmental Protection say a plan will be put in place for law abiding owners to contact the state so their pets can be properly placed in new surroundings.

Perhaps easier said than done. In fact a couple of Republican lawmakers submitted an amendment to the wild animal ban making Blumenthal’s office the drop-off point.

Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, wants the legislation amended to grandfather existing pets and require the DEP to enforce a registration program.

There are some in the General Assembly who roll their eyes when Urban’s name comes up because she is passionate about particular subjects, like animals. But she has a point when she argues that some owners of the banned pets, after being told they can no longer harbor the creatures, are more likely to try to hide them from discovery, or go to extremes and release them or even kill them.

“Grandfather everybody and after that say ‘no more’,” Urban said.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with another lawmaker who told me the wild animal ban was a complete over-reaction by state government but they would never dare say that publicly.

My guess is this individual and others are afraid they will appear insensitive if they in any way question a law proposed in the wake of tragedy.

But sympathy for Nash and Travis might not be enough to convince lawmakers consumed with more immediate concerns like a huge budget deficit to pass the wild animal ban by the time the session wraps-up June 3 if it’s an unworkable bill.

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition released a new television ad today urging state lawmakers to raise taxes on wealthy households and corporations to help balance the budget.

Half-jokingly I asked SEBAC spokesman Matt O’Connor if the ad called out some of the legislative Democrats – many from Fairfield County – who have come out against their party’s proposal to increase the income tax rates on households earning $250,000 or more.

O’Connor in all seriousness said that is the next step.

“We don’t name names. We don’t call anybody out in the ad … yet,” O’Connor said.

He said SEBAC has identified about 10 Senate Democrats and an equal number of House Democrats who have issues with the progressive income tax and began trying to meet with them today to talk it out.

Having agreed to union concessions a few weeks ago, SEBAC has made the case it is now time for other groups to step up and be a part of the budget solution.

Republicans and some Democrats have refused publicly to consider tax increases, arguing lawmakers have not proposed enough budget cuts.

Stamford’s Democratic delegation and Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, got off relatively easy back in 2007 when they helped to thwart that year’s effort by the Democratic majority to hike income taxes on wealthier constituents.

Although the tax package was also supposed to provide cuts for some middle and lower-income residents, none of the Stamford lawmakers or Duff took any real heat back home, at least in public. Perhaps because the state at the time was still enjoying a surplus and local Democrats know that if they want to hold onto those districts, they need to avoid giving potential Republican candidates easy campaign ads like “Andrew McDonald voted in Hartford to raise YOUR taxes!”

But with Connecticut facing a two-year budget deficit estimated between $7.95 billion and $8.7 billion, it’s going to be tougher for those same Democrats and some of the others who have since joined them, to avoid voting for some sort of an income tax hike and walk away politically unscathed.

Particularly with the state unions playing hardball.

Everyone is focused on today’s Quinnipiac University poll about U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. But I understand that Quinnipiac will be releasing a new poll tomorrow gauging the public’s reaction to abolishing the death penalty.

The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate last week – the first time the bill had been voted out of either chamber – but Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has threatened to veto it when it reaches her desk.

It’s hard to imagine anything will sway Rell at this point but it will be interesting to see the poll results.

Quinnipiac last released a death penalty poll in November 2007 – a few months after that summer’s high profile home invasion and triple murders in Cheshire.

That poll found respondents supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder 63 to 27 percent, with 73 percent in favor of executing the two parolees accused of the Cheshire crimes.

But when the poll asked whether respondents preferred the death penalty or life in prison without parole for murderers, the results were much closer – 47 percent to 44 percent.

As for Rell, her approval numbers remain strong, according to today’s Quinnipiac poll. She enjoys a 73 percent rating, including a 68 percent rating among Democrats.

My colleague Ken Dixon at our sister paper, The Connecticut Post, covered today’s vote in the Senate on the open container bill. The legislation, which now heads to the House of Representatives, is intended to crack down on motorists and their passengers who cruise around the state with open bottles of booze.

Although you can’t drink and drive in Connecticut, you can’t be arrested for having an open container in your cup holder or between your knees or propped in the passenger’s seat or in the hands of a passenger. The cops have to see you taking a sip of alcohol or driving erratically and generally acting drunk on the road in order to make a stop.

For years lawmakers, including the recently retired Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, have pushed unsuccessfully for a law banning open containers in vehicles arguing it leads to drunk driving.

Under the current proposal, cops still can’t stop drivers for having an open container in the vehicle. They have to have other reasons as well.

So really the bill passed today by the Senate doesn’t change a heck of a lot since I think cops who witness a driver or passengers with an open container currently find some excuse to turn on the lights and sirens and check things out. The main difference is now you can actually be fined around $90 for the container.

The change is meant to address one of the issues that killed the bill last year, Nickerson’s last session as a member of the legislature. Nickerson was deprived the retirement gift of seeing the legislation passed into law when minority members of the House complained it would lead to racial profiling.

(Some others also argued the open container bill of 2008 would have inadvertantly put an end to the all-American tailgating party. Tailgating has been specifically exempted in the 2009 version.)

Several Senators dropped Nickerson’s name during today’s debate so I figured I’d call him up and ask him for his thoughts.

“I’m delighted the Senate has passed this overwhelmingly, as it has for numerous years,” Nickerson said. “I’ve never accepted the suggestions … that the bill had the slightest thing to do with race. That was an unfortunate and unwarranted injection into the debate.”

Nickerson said he is a “realistic enough political operator” to accept the new provision requiring cops have a second excuse for pulling a driver over if that’s what it takes for the bill to survive in the House.

“I don’t think it’s necessary in terms of the policy,” Nickerson said.

He also called the argument the bill would forever ruin tailgating “nutty.”

“The bill has been pilloried for policies unrelated to alcohol,” Nickerson said. “But one day someone will be driving down the street with an open container, there will be a fateful accident and Connecticut will rue the day it didn’t pass this law.”

I wrote a story last week exploring lawmakers’ concerns about the impact the early retirement incentives offered state unions will have on reforming and rebuilding the Department of Transportation.

I tried and failed to reach former DOT Chief Emil Frankel of Westport and had to resort to using some quotes about the state of the agency he made when, at the behest of Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, he returned to the helm in early 2008 while the state conducted a nationwide search for a new commissioner.

Frankel was kind enough to return my phonecall and we had a brief discussion this afternoon. His assessment of the early retirement plan on the DOT? Some excellent folks might end up being promoted, but overall it’s not a good thing for the agency.

“There is an overall shortage of programmatic and project management skills,” Frankel said. “They do exist in the department and to the extent it’s given the opportunity to come forth it’s good. But overall there’s just not enough of those skills in the department. The department needs to be rebuilt. It’s not a time to be cutting back.”

Frankel prefaced his statement by saying since he is no longer involved in state government he is not in a position to comment on the current fiscal crisis, which is what resulted in the early retirement plan. The plan was part of a package of union concessions intended to help address a two-year budget deficit estimated between $7.95 billion and $8.7 billion.

The concessions were negotiated by the Rell administration and supported by Democrats and Republicans in the legislature. So if the early retirement plan does indeed set back efforts to reform the DOT, there will be plenty of blame to go around.

Last week the House of Representatives, following a lengthy debate, passed a pair of bills intended to overhaul the Connecticut’s healthcare system – the Healthcare Partnership legislation and the SustiNet proposal.

The Partnership is House Speaker Christopher Donovan’s, D-Meriden, pet legislation and, as such, will likely be voted on and passed by his fellow Democrats in the Senate before the session ends on June 3.

As one Democratic Senator told me last week, besides supporting the Partnership, Senate Democrats need to pass the legislation in order to ensure Donovan allows some of their pet bills to survive in the House.

But SustiNet – a far more ambitious and costly proposal – might be a different story.

As co-chairman of the legislature’s Public Health Committee, Sen. Jonathan Harris, D-West Hartford, would be responsible for introducing the bill in the Senate for a vote.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has made it clear she has major concerns about both the Healthcare Partnership and SustiNet and the plans have faced stiff opposition from legislative Republicans.

Harris told me late last week he was considering amending SustiNet in an effort to gain greater bi-partisan support and potentially avoid a Rell veto.

“I want a bill that will pass and not just send a message and die on the vine,” Harris said.

But if the Senate approves an amended SustiNet bill, it has to return to the House for another vote. And unless the changes somehow appease a majority of Republicans, the House GOP is likely to stage yet another lengthy debate – something Democratic leadership wants to avoid in these waning days of the session with so many other, less-controversial bills awaiting passage.

Donovan supports SustiNet but he may decide to cut his losses if the Healthcare Partnership makes it through the Senate and not raise SustiNet for another House vote.

Some capitol insiders believe Harris’ position on SustiNet reflects the fact that the bill’s supporters worked more closely with the other Public Health co-chair – Rep. Betsy Ritter, D-Quaker Hill.

And in fact Ritter last week told me she hopes SustiNet is not amended by the Senate.

“I would hope we’re done with it,” Ritter said. “I’m happy with the bill the way it is.”

Some of the more interesting conversations I’ve had while covering the debate over the bill abolishing the state’s death penalty are with two lawmakers who said they first wrestled with their own willingness to execute a convicted criminal.

Freshman Rep. Fred Camillo, R-Greenwich, decided to vote to maintain the death penalty only after coming to terms with the idea he would be able to carry out a death sentence personally.

“If I had to, I could if their guilt was beyond a doubt, and there was no remorse and no chance of rehabilitation,” Camillo said.

Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of abolishing the death penalty, has historically opposed capital punishment because “I don’t think I could pull the switch to execute another human.”

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has supported the death penalty in the past and threatened to veto the bill when it arrives at her desk in the coming days.

Which makes me wonder if she has ever struggled with the same question posed by Roraback and Camillo – could she personally perform an execution?

It’s certainly not a requirement. There are probably plenty of legislators and members of the general public who support the death penalty but would not be able to end someone’s life, regardless of their guilt.

But having never seriously wrestled with the idea of the death penalty until I began writing about it these past few weeks, I’ve got to admit it is a challenging exercise to envision yourself in the executioner’s shoes pulling that switch.