May 14
jonpeltoGubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Republicans Democrats, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, Republicans
File this one under the headline; Connecticut Republicans reiterate dedication to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory…
Faced with the reality that Governor Malloy has spent the last two years alienating just about everyone and every group that was part of the coalition that put him into the governor’s office, the Republicans could be facing an unprecedented opportunity to beat an incumbent governor.
It would take a history buff to recall when that last occurred in Connecticut.
So with that in mind, the Republican Party’s upcoming 35th annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner provided the Connecticut Republicans with a special chance to showcase the type of leadership they’d bring to the state if Connecticut voters elected a Republican governor in 2014.
Given that reality and the opportunity to invite any person in the nation to serve as their keynote speaker, who did the Republicans turn to for their big annual gala event that is taking place next Monday night?
Scott Walker, the Governor of Wisconsin.
Call it colossal stupidity or a deep and abiding commitment to alienating the very voters that the Connecticut Republicans would need if they actually wanted to win the next, or any, gubernatorial election.
That’s right, the Connecticut Republicans chose Scott Walker, the wing-nut, tea-bagger, ultra-conservative, anti-teacher, anti-state employee, anti-union, pro-corporate education reformer to serve as their keynote speaker and the “face” of the biggest event the Connecticut Republicans hold each year.
The Governor Scott Walker who opposes abortion including in cases of rape and incest, supports abstinence-only sex education in public schools and opposes any state funding for services related to birth control and the testing or treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Governor Scott Walker who supported Wisconsin’s Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and, as governor, tried to undo the state’s domestic partner registry because it created, “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”
The Governor Scott Walker who returned $37.6 million in federal funds meant to set up a health exchange in Wisconsin because he thought it was related to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Walker also rejected $11 million in federal funding to improve the state’s Medicaid enrollment system because he claimed it would make it easier for the poor to get healthcare.
The Governor Scott Walker who was part of the right-wing effort to suppress voter participation by requiring that only government-issued IDs could be used before a person was allowed to vote.
And the list goes on…
Imagine the statement the Connecticut Republicans are making to the Connecticut voters who are yearning for new and innovative leadership…
The Connecticut Republican Party could have chosen anyone in the nation to showcase their ideals and principles and they chose Scott Walker.
The Connecticut Republicans have proven, yet again, their commitment to failure and have made the case, even more clearly, that if we are going to get the change in leadership our state needs and deserves it will have to come from a candidate that is running separately from the state’s two existing political establishments.
May 07
jonpeltoEducation Reform, Malloy, State Politics Democrats, Education Reform, Malloy, State Politics
[Now that it is just us Democrats here; let’s take a moment to talk politics].
There were seven new Democratic Governors elected in the United States in 2010. Today, when it comes to measuring each governor’s support from members of their own party;
One new Democratic governor’s job performance rating among Democrats is +80 percent
Two new Democratic governors are about +65 percent
Two new Democratic governors about are about +55 percent
One new Democratic governor one is at +45 percent
And then, according to the last Quinnipiac poll, one new Democratic governor is at a breathtakingly low +19 percent.
That is right – there is a Democratic governor whose support among his own party is only a positive 19 percent. Less than one-quarter of the support the most popular new Democratic governor has….and that lowest in the nation governor is Dannel Malloy.
The “Education Reform” Debate:
Governor Malloy and the proponents of his “education reform” bill often claim that Connecticut’s legislators should pass Malloy’s version of Senate Bill #24 because “the voters support education reform” and “every other state is doing it.”
In his state of the state speech, Malloy talked about these reforms being adopted in 35 other states. ConnCAN’s CEO, Patrick Riccards, likes to say that “Connecticut’s reform bill is mild compared to that in other states.”
As we now know, both statements are false.
But more importantly, we are taught early in life that just because “everyone else is doing it” doesn’t mean we should and as Democrats, we believe that public policy should be driven by doing the right thing rather than what is politically expedient according to public opinion polls. (Although, truth be told, it isn’t even accurate to claim that Connecticut voters “support” these education reforms. They support having better schools but are mixed on some of the individual proposals.)
In any case, while we don’t believe in governance by polling, we Democrats do recognize the importance of representing our constituents, especially those who took the time to go to the polls to cast their votes for our candidates. After all, that is why America is called a ”representative democracy.”
In Connecticut, Democrats win when we have strong support from our political base and do fairly well among unaffiliated voters. Since Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a 2-1 margin at the statewide level, when Democrats receive overwhelming support from Democratic voters, our candidates can actually win with a minority of unaffiliated voters. Of course at the congressional and legislative level, in order to be successful, candidates must get a big Democratic vote and the majority of unaffiliated voters in order to be victorious.
The gubernatorial election of 2010 was a perfect example. Dan Malloy won that election with just 49 percent of the popular vote. According to the last Quinnipiac Poll, released just hours before the election, 88 percent of Democrats intended to vote for Dan Malloy, 9 percent of Democrats intended to vote for Tom Foley and only 3 percent were undecided or said that they would vote for someone else.
That 88 percent, along with a minority of unaffiliated voters, gave the Democrats control of the governor’s office after 20 years.
Now here we are – eighteen months later.
One of the most traditional ways to understand voter attitudes is to measure an elected official’s “job-performance” rating. While job performance is not a perfectly predictor of how people will vote in the future, it is a fairly good indicator of the overall level of support among various sub-constituencies such as party affiliation.
Last week, Quinnipiac University released a new poll revealing that 37 percent of all Connecticut voters’ approved of the way Governor Malloy is handling his job, 44 percent disapprove of his job performance and 19 percent are undecided or neither approve or disapprove of the way he is conducting his job as governor.
Quite frankly, it is far too early to worry too much about the overall numbers; besides, we know that the key measure is where Democrats stand, since in the end, a strong Democratic base is the fundamental building block to a successful election.
To date, Governor Malloy’s strategy has often been to confront and attack key constituencies within his own party. Last year Governor Malloy proposed record budget cuts, including cuts to services that are traditionally supported by Democrats. He also entered into a long and confrontational battle with our state employees.
This year, under the guise of “education reform,” Malloy has proposed the most anti-teacher, anti-union “education reform” bill of any Democratic governor in the nation.
In the forty years since public employees won the right to collectively bargain, no Connecticut governor; Democrat, Republican or Independent has ever proposed that collective bargaining be banned for a group of public employees. But that is exactly what Governor Malloy has done.
The Governor’s job performance rating is a measurement of the impact his confrontational approach has had with key constituencies within the Democratic Party.
The following chart indicates how Connecticut Democratic voters rate Governor Malloy’s job performance. In politics we use a statistic that measures the rate of approval compared to the rate of disapproval – we call that the overall positive or negative rating of an individual (i.e. +/-). The higher the positive rating the better the candidate or elected officials is doing.
Malloy Job Approval Democratic Voters
|
Approve
|
Disapprove
|
Don’t Know
|
+/-
|
March 2011
|
51
|
24
|
25
|
+27
|
June 2011
|
52
|
29
|
25
|
+23
|
September 2011
|
56
|
35
|
9
|
+21
|
March 2012
|
64
|
27
|
10
|
+37
|
April 2012
|
51
|
32
|
17
|
+19
|
Except for a bounce in March 2012, what is particularly noteworthy is Governor Malloy’s job performance rating, among Democrats, has been trending dramatically downward since the day he took office.
Malloy versus other new Democratic Governors;
In addition, what has been happening with Governor Malloy becomes even more pronounced when one looks at where Malloy stands against the other new Democratic governors around the nation. (There were seven new Democratic governors in the Class of 2011). All data here are from recent, independent public opinion surveys.
Job Approval
|
Approve
|
Disapprove
|
Don’t Know
|
+/-
|
Brown (CA)
|
69
|
15
|
15
|
+54
|
Cuomo (NY)
|
79
|
15
|
5
|
+65
|
Dayton (MN)
|
85
|
5
|
10
|
+80
|
Hickenlooper (CO)
|
73
|
9
|
18
|
+64
|
Kitzhaber (OR)
|
56
|
11
|
32
|
+45
|
Shumlin (VT)
|
71
|
14
|
15
|
+57
|
Shocking is rather an understatement.
In Minnesota, Governor Dayton just vetoed an “education reform” bill that was being pushed by 50CAN, the national outgrowth of ConnCAN and formed by the same people who founded Achievement First. Even before vetoing that bill, Dayton’s support among Minnesota Democrats was +80 percent compared to Malloy’s + 19 percent among Democrats.
Again, as noted above, we Democrats do not lead by poll results but we also have a fundamental duty to look at whether we are successfully representing the people who put us in office.
It is time to have an honest discussion about what happens when a governor spends his time confronting and alienating some of the most basic elements of our party.
Aug 07
jonpeltoMalloy, Pelto Democrats, Malloy, Pelto
(Also posted on Pelto’s Point at the New Haven Advocate)
In this weekend’s Hartford Courant, Patrick Scully, a media consultant, political blogger and former communications director for the Connecticut Senate Democrats wrote that I and other Governor Malloy critics are “hopelessly disconnected from the average Connecticut citizen and continue to wallow in the failed, far-left, now-fringe policies of 1970s.”
Mr. Scully’s piece can be found at: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-scully-democrats-labor-malloy-f20110807,0,1171634.story
Scully’s premise is that “Good Democrats” support Dan Malloy that “Good Democrats” recognize that the Governor’s decision to shred the safety net and implement massive layoffs of state employees are actually the employees fault and that Malloy should not be held responsible for the damage these cuts and layoffs will be doing to Connecticut.
To back up his observation, Scully goes on to proclaim that supporting Connecticut’s public employees at this time is similar to supporting George McGovern and that “George McGovern is no longer relevant, nor are his policies” and that “today’s Democrats [himself included] are in the camp of John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton Barak Obama and, yes, Dan Malloy.”
My response is rather long, but I hope you’ll take the time to read it in its entirety.
To start, readers who want to better understand why I’m so disappointed with Governor Malloy are welcome to read some of my blog posts at Wait, What? [http://jonpelto.wordpress.com/] where I’ve consistently tried to provide some perspective on what is going on in Hartford and articulate why I believe that Dan Malloy has, too often, pursued a path that has violated some of the fundamental principles and values we Democrats hold dear.
In addition to his poor handling of the state employee concession issue, I’ve been particularly critical of his tax policy that coddled the super-rich at the expense of the middle class, his decision to make the deepest cuts in state history to our public colleges and universities and his participation in undermining Connecticut’s landmark campaign finance law.
But what really intrigues me about Mr. Scully’s commentary piece is his conclusion that those of us who have criticized Governor Malloy are followers of failed politicians and failed policies of a bygone era.
It is that issue I’d like to address in more detail.
I’m not sure how old Mr. Scully is but we may have to excuse him for his lack of knowledge about George McGovern, his lack of understanding about the contributions McGovern made to the Democratic Party and our country or the connections between JFK, Bill Clinton and George McGovern.
In addition, I don’t want to let the irony go unmentioned – but the fact is – George McGovern’s 1972 campaign for president was the first campaign I was truly and deeply involved in. True I was only 11 at the time but it was in that campaign that I heard the call to a life of politics and political action. I not only traveled to hear and meet the candidate but I spent innumerable hours in the fall of 1972 at the Mansfield Democratic Party headquarters making phone calls. If I recall correctly my mother even managed to get the school bus to stop at HQ after school. My love/hate relationship with Persuasion, ID and GOTV calling began with that campaign experience (not to mention my understanding of the ins and outs of political organizing).
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start, as the saying goes, at the beginning.
When calling someone a name, it is important to understand the actual meaning of the words you are hurling. Scully calls me (and other Malloy critics) “McGovernites” almost as if he was calling us Commies or Pinkos.
While it is true that George McGovern is best known today for his stunning 1972 defeat, he was not only an outspoken opponent to the Vietnam War and the Military-Industrial Complex but he used his career to make a signficant contribution to a more progressive America.
A decorated veteran in WWII (he flew bombers over Nazi Germany), McGovern returned to South Dakota after the War to pursue a college teaching career.
After hearing Adlai Stevenson’s presidential nominating speech in 1952 he spent the fall helping the Stevenson for President effort.
Although Stevenson’s campaign was unsuccessful, McGovern apparently realized that it was through political action that he could have the impact he desired so he shifted to a career in politics and a life dedicated to furthering, dare I say, a liberal agenda.
Following the Stevenson defeat, he left teaching to become the executive secretary of the South Dakota Democratic Party in 1953. For the next few years McGovern worked to help build the state Party’s operation including (interestingly) building what has been called one of the first centralized voter files in the United States. In his first election with the state Party the Democrats won 25 legislative seats, giving them 27 seats instead of the 2 that they had previously controlled in the South Dakota Legislature.
The national party was so impressed with the work he was doing that they added him to the DNC’s committee on political organizing.
In the next election cycle, McGovern ran for South Dakota’s 1st Congressional District. Using his hand-made voter file and a loan of $5,000 McGovern went on to beat a four-term incumbent.
Late in the campaign the Republicans tried to derail McGovern’s campaign by suggesting that he was a Communist. Why a Communist? Because it was 1954 and he was in favor of allowing China to join the United Nations and had previously supported the populist and socialist politician Henry Wallace.
As a Congressman, McGovern focused on supporting American farmers and was the driving force behind the United States’ role in using surplus crops to help feed the world.
The powerful chairman of the Agriculture Committees once said “I cannot recall a single member of Congress who has fought more vigorously or intelligently for American farmers than Congressman McGovern.”
Following an unsuccessful run for the US Senate in 1960, newly elected President John F. Kennedy picked McGovern to serve as a Special Assistant to the President and the nation’s first director of Kennedy’s Food for Peace Program.
In that role, McGovern was instrumental in pushing the United Nations to create the World Food Program. The UN’s Food Program has gone on to become the largest and most successful hunger and humanitarian effort in history.
As an aside, McGovern’s work to reduce world hunger continued long after he left elective office. In fact, in 2001 he was named the UN Global Ambassador on World Hunger by the World Food Program, the entity that he had helped create 40 years earlier.
In 1962, McGovern left the Kennedy Administration and returned to South Dakota to run again for the US Senate. This time he won by 597 votes.
McGovern returned to Congress and continued his efforts to help farmers and fight hunger, both here at home and around the world.
His legislative legacy includes the creation of the food stamp program and the creation of nutritional guidelines for Americans.
A Congressional investigation he led produced the ”McGovern Report” which recommended, among other things, that “Americans eat less fat, less cholesterol, less refined and processed sugars, and more complex carbohydrates and fiber.” Little by little those recommendations have been adopted over the past 45 years – often over the objections of the food industry.
And during all of those years he continued to work on world hunger. His 1964 book entitled War Against Want: America’s Food for Peace Program was part of his broader and eventually successful effort to dramatically expand the Food for Peace Program.
From the very beginning of his Senate career George McGovern was also a leader in the effort to get the Defense Budget in check.
In his freshman term as a Senator he proposed reducing the $53 billion defense budget by 10%. The next year he became the first member of Congress to speak out against the US role in Vietnam.
As the 1960s progressed, his role within the Democratic Party continued to rise.
Following the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention, McGovern Co-chaired a the commission charged with restructuring the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process. The McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the Democratic Party from one dominated by party elite to one based on caucuses and
primaries. The nominating process that we have today, the one that allowed Bill Clinton and Barak Obama to win the Democratic nomination for president is the direct result of McGovern’s rule changes.
But his standing and role within the Democratic Party went far beyond writing those reforms.
In 1968, South Dakota’s Democratic Primary was held on the same day as California’s. Robert Kennedy won the South Dakota primary and called McGovern moments before he headed downstairs to give his famous California acceptance speech. A few minutes later Kennedy was shot to death as he exited that California hotel.
Following the assassination, key Kennedy aides asked McGovern to announce for the Democratic nomination and promised the support of Kennedy’s delegates. Robert Kennedy’s team did not like Humphrey and resented that fact that Gene McCarthy might benefit from Kennedy’s assassination. However, McGovern held off and instead waited for Ted Kennedy to make a decision about whether he was going to run. By the time McGovern did announce it was too late and Hubert Humphrey went on to win the nomination.
McGovern returned to Washington and continued his effort to end the war. That strategy took him to Boston in October 1969 where he spoke to 100,000 and then on to Washington where he helped lead the 350,000 strong anti-war march and rally at the Washington Monument.
McGovern’s next strategy was to push a Congressional Resolution that would end the war by cutting off all funding for the war effort.
When the proponents of the resolution couldn’t get sufficient media coverage for the effort McGovern took out a second mortgage on his home to pay for a half-hour nationally televised discussion about the resolution.
That in turn brought in over $500,000 and they used those funds to pay for a broader public education campaign.
By the time the resolution came up for a vote, public opinion polls showed that a majority of American’s supported McGovern’s resolution and his approach to ending the war.
Although the resolution was defeated following an intensive lobbying effort by the Nixon White House, George McGovern’s speech on the floor of the Senate had a profound impact on the national debate.
Sadly, his words then are as meaningful, powerful and timely today. McGovern said;
“Every Senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land – young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes. There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes. And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will someday curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution
places on us.”
McGovern’s anti-war stance propelled him even further into the national scene. By 1973 he was putting together a campaign for President. Gary Hart, who went on to become a United States Senator from Colorado, served as McGovern’s campaign manager and the two of them helped design the modern grass-roots form of campaigning that we utilize today. It was Gary Hart who is credited with using “social networking” in a more coordinated way although he called it the strategy of using people’s “concentric circles”.
In an interesting twist, Bill Clinton managed McGovern’s campaign in Texas. (Although I’m not sure that fact ever made Clinton’s presidential campaign bio).
Despite losing several key southern primaries to George Wallace, McGovern won enough delegates to get the Democratic nomination.
McGovern’s platform included a 37% reduction in defense spending and a massive welfare reform plan that would later become known as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a mechanism to support low-income working Americans and provide an incentive for people to work rather than rely on welfare.
The EITC was finally adopted under Presidents Ford, Reagan and Clinton. And, in the small world department, was one of Governor Malloy’s better initiatives this past year. Although watered down at the end, the Connecticut’s General Assembly finally adopted an EITC for Connecticut this year.
But, in the end, as with Adlai Stevenson before him, great ideas were not enough to propel McGovern to victory.
With the power of the presidency behind him, along with a variety of illegal activities that would eventually lead to Nixon’s resignation, the incumbent president won the 1972 election in a landslide.
McGovern returned to the Senate but never regained the prominence he once had.
And to end this little story, in 1980, George McGovern was one of the liberal senators targeted by the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Following a campaign which focused primarily on McGovern’s pro-choice record, George McGovern went down to defeat in the Reagan landslide.
So back to the present.
I appreciate Mr. Scully’s right to criticize me and others for our criticism of Dan Malloy and I certainly understand his concern that now is not the time to “wallow in the failed, far-left, now-fringe policies of 1970s.”
But that said, I’m pretty sure that fighting against a senseless war, preserving programs like food stamps, revamping the tax structure to support not punish working families and working to end hunger here and abroad don’t count as “failed, far-left, now fringe policies”.
I don’t doubt that there are “Good Democrats” who support both President Obama and Governor Malloy. I too consider myself a “Good Democrat” and in that capacity I believe we have an obligation to speak out when it appears that either of them have stumbled from the path that got them elected – or even more importantly – are failing to implement the most fundamental principles and values that we Democrats stand for.
Jun 29
jonpeltoMalloy, State Employees Democrats, Malloy, State Employees
Malloy slams knife into the back of Democratic Party - follows Wisconsin – with No hearing, No negotiations, No nothing:
As CTMirror and others are reporting, Governor Malloy is informing Legislative Democrats that he wants a new law “changing the way state employee pensions are calculated and unilaterally attempting to reduce employee sick days while freezing longevity payments.
Even if passed, the new law on pensions would not have any impact until the state’s collective bargaining agreement on health and retirement benefits ends in 2017 and even then it would be a matter for collective bargaining. The reduction in sick days and longevity would take place as present union contracts end – but again – would be a matter for collective bargaining.
So why do this now?
Did he simply lie when he said he supported collective bargaining?
Is he such a bully that he can’t control himself?
Does he want to destroy Connecticut’s Democratic Party?
Roy Occhigrosso explains to the CTMirror that “None of this is contradictory” and that Malloy remains a “strong supporter” of the rights of employees to collectively bargain.”
Meanwhile, there is no word from Nancy Wyman, Malloy’s Lt. Governor, who has devoted much of her public life to helping support Connecticut’s public employees and was added to the Malloy ticket, in part, to shore up support from union members.
My response:
I’ve said it before; will say it again – if a Republican proposed these things we’d be in the streets calling for impeachment.
This is no longer an issue in which reasonable people can disagree.
Dan Malloy has defaulted on his ability to lead by walking away from the fundamental principles and beliefs of the Democratic Party.
His actions are doing tremendous damage to our government, our priorities and to the very people who elected him.
Now will Connecticut’s other Democratic elected officials remain silent?
May 10
jonpeltoMalloy, State Employees Democrats, Malloy, State Employees
The date was March 2, 2011: Day 1 of the Malloy/State Employee negotiations.
http://jonpelto.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/connecticut-is-not-wisconsin%e2%80%a6-right-right/
“But before we think that Connecticut and Wisconsin have nothing in common when it comes to the rights of workers, let us remember that efforts to undercut unions and the rights of employees to join together for their common good come in a variety of forms.
Like bullying, anti-union efforts can be overt, covert or both.
Bullying occurs when a “person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways”. It is behavior that seeks to intimidate, offend, denigrate or humiliate a person or group of persons.
As we know, now more than ever, bullying is a form of abuse that is often perpetrated on another as a way to intimidate someone to take some particular action.
Governor Malloy’s entire budget is based on state employees agreeing to make $2 billion dollars in wage and benefit concessions.
Anyone familiar with Connecticut’s state budget knows it is a number that literally cannot be achieved and the Governor purposely put out a number that is designed to fail.
Disguised as shared sacrifice, the Governor’s proposal is scapegoating of the worst kind since he has repeatedly connected his demands to the state employees with the warning that if the state employees fail to provide $1 billion in annual savings, he will be forced to shred the safety net and lay-off thousands of employees at a time the unemployment rate makes it clear that many of those laid off will not be able to find jobs.
Malloy has been very clear. If state employees don’t come up with a billion dollars in concessions – this year – the most vulnerable and needy people among us will be hurt and the fault will lie squarely with the state employees and no one else.
Even today, as the Malloy Administration and the state employee unions prepare to officially sit down for the first time, Malloy’s chief political advisor said that the “governor hopes and expects the talks to be productive and will produce the money that’s necessary to help balance the budget,”
The facts could not be clearer.
Saying that his budget is balanced when he knows it is not and then setting up Connecticut’s state employees to take the fall is more than a gimmick, it is nothing short of a mean-spirited form of bullying.
The definition of bullying is clear. A person or group is being bullied when “exposed, repeatedly and over time, to actions that seek to intimidate, offend, denigrate or humiliate.
Let’s face it, today the Connecticut’s Public Employee Unions will be sitting down with representatives of an Administration that would be expelled from school or fired from the workplace for the intentional bullying that they have perpetrated.
*********
Flash Forward: May 10, 2011…. Now let’s ask the question again, is Connecticut really that different from Wisconsin?
May 02
jonpeltoMalloy, State Budget, State Legislature Budget, Democrats, Malloy
(cross-posted from Pelto’s Point at the New Haven Advocate)
Governor Malloy, Senate President Williams and Speaker Donovan cleared the way for passage of Malloy’s proposed budget this morning after pulling the language that would have destroyed Connecticut’s campaign finance system and agreeing that the Legislature will have to vote on any additional cuts if the state employees don’t come up with $2 billion dollars (not making that change would have meant the budget was an unconstitutional transfer or power to the Executive Branch).
However, the new agreement completely fails to address the TOP THREE REASONS Democratic Legislators should vote no and those are:
(1) State employees are not the enemy. This is the most anti-state employee budget in modern history. $2 Billion in employee concessions is not achievable leaving this budget a half a billion or more out of balance. With or without concessions this budget includes significant layoffs. Voting for a budget that lays people off and reduces services without knowing where those cuts will occur means legislators are failing to fulfill their responsibilities.
(2) This budget coddles the super rich. Although $300 of the $500 property tax credit is reinstated, this tax plan still places an unfair burden on Connecticut’s middle class while not requiring Connecticut’s wealth pay their fair share. With the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts the richest 1% will pocket an extra $156,000 a year while this budget only requires someone making $2 million a year to pay $11,900 more.
(3) This budget makes the deepest cuts in history to Connecticut’s colleges and universities. At the very moment Connecticut should be strengthen its workforce, this budget takes us exactly in the wrong direction.
Finally, good that they are also removing Malloy’s plan to raise the gas tax by 3 cents but they are not capping the gross receipts tax which means the state of Connecticut will continue to be gouger #2 behind the oil companies when it comes to inflating the price of gasoline.
The Governor and Legislature have not completed their work. They need to go back and fix this budget or they will be saddling Connecticut with a budget that does not move our state forward in the right direction.
May 02
jonpeltoMalloy, State Budget, State Legislature Budget, Democrats, Malloy, State Legislature
(cross-posted from Pelto’s Point at the New Haven Advocate)
The Connecticut State Senate is scheduled to vote on the State Budget today, the House of Representatives tomorrow.
The General Assembly should not be voting on this proposed budget. If a vote is taken, Legislators should vote no and force the changes that are needed to ensure Connecticut has a fair, honest and legal budget.
Here are just 5 reasons Legislators Must Vote NO…
(1) State employees are not the enemy. This is the most anti-state employee budget in modern history. $2 Billion in employee concessions is not achievable leaving this budget a half a billion or more out of balance. With or without concessions this budget includes significant layoffs. Voting for a budget that lays people off and reduces services without knowing where those cuts will occur means legislators are failing to fulfill their responsibilities.
(2) This budget coddles the super rich. Although $300 of the $500 property tax credit is reinstated, this tax plan still places an unfair burden on Connecticut’s middle class while not requiring Connecticut’s wealth pay their fair share. With the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts the richest 1% will pocket an extra $156,000 a year while this budget only requires someone making $2 million a year to pay $11,900 more.
(3) This budget makes the deepest cuts in history to Connecticut’s colleges and universities. At the very moment Connecticut should be strengthen its workforce, this budget takes us exactly in the wrong direction.
(4) This budget destroys Connecticut’s best in the nation campaign finance plan. While the Governor and Legislative leaders deny any knowledge as to how the language got into the budget deal , the budget document would undo all the work and progress that has been made toward strengthening our democracy and reducing the influence of special interests.
(5) It is illegal to vote on this budget. With the employee concession issue unresolved, revenues and expenditures do not match as required by the Connecticut Constitution. In addition, the proposed solution, simply giving the Governor the authority to make any and all cuts necessary to balance the budget is an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral delegation of duty.
The Governor and Legislature have not completed their work. They need to go back and fix this budget or they will be saddling Connecticut with a budget that does not move our state forward in the right direction.
RSS
